- 1 Shareful inviting
- 2 Shareful defaults, cores, clauses and specifications
- 3 Shareful application
- 4 Shareful clauses harm advantatges
- 5 Shareful morphology
- 6 Shareful and law
- 7 Shareful core is lovelier than law
- 8 Sharic
Shareful are coded ways of sharing (shareful invitations) either applicable to a tiny pen or for a collection of big goods. Shareful has a default core offering very permissive conditions for using objects. This default can be partially custom limitated. These partial limitings deny some using rights to others while keep permitting the rest of default very permissive interacting. There is a set of limitations that can be choosed and anyone can also add their own custom limitations.
Shareful default terms are the only word shareful and whatever anyone could interpret about that in the first place. The above definition (shareful is lovely sharing) is also an useful default meaning.
We want "shareful" to act for offering whatever object in a lovely sharing way. That is why is useful to create an invitation i.e.
"Invitation" is the terms (core + clauses + other specifications). "Offer" is object + terms.
This default invitation being so short is useful for sharing the experience of interpreting an offering code. It is being understood and debated with the minimal posible learning curve by anyone barely knowing any english.
Shareful itself and the 5 words pack from this default invitation are quite loveloaded for this shareful love not being easily gamed and making settling interaction pleasant enough. There is shareful.be (the more shareful crowded place in the world) with wiki pages with cases that should help as a reference for any contextual and subjective mediating with the offer see shareful and law.
This shareful invitation is a default core. Everyone can choose a many but limited personal shareful invitation defaults (i.e. shareful, just shareful, use with car, Full Shareful Invitation project, etc) in shareful applications (if you choose to overwrite your default inviting then it is labelled as "for sharing").
Cores and clauses are part of an API, this means anyone can build applications about this shareful love. We also offer a default web form (at be.shareful.be) made with the less code possible and the more expressive featuring (including other forms, downloads and else).
Shareful clauses are harming the shareful love but might make more comfortable most of the people in many contextual situations. Some shareful acts will start heavily claused and after gaining more confidence, they will be dropping some or all clauses later for that or for another thing.
The settling clauses code the how to any mediator who is not the original offeror should settle disputes, if any. The default settling core is "caring cheers" in the invitation. In the application, it is extended with "tell contact and bring it back" plus its child "as found or improved" plus its clauses grandsons (and no more taxonomic family).
Settling clauses are parameters ordering for settling disputes.
The suggested default clausing for settling is "the one who more future lovely offers". This can be changed and or increased with i.e. "...,less things have at the present", "the one having been less user of the more similar things in the past", with limited parameters but endless amounts of them (it is limited to 5 in the default application).
The settling clauses are very useful for not needing to bother about adding other type of clauses at all and for generating quality relational information between offerors.
Clauses are free cored with words, numbers, graphics, signs, audio and else formats.
Naming convention for clauses is based on it being
- Adjective (shareful is primarily a noun)
- Recognizable (related to the popular view on that restriction)
- Original (for not conflicting with other keywords that we could better use for other specifications i.e. bringa shareful would confuse)
- Restrictive connotation (because a clause is restrictive)
- A little bit insulting (for promoting a discouraging influence for restricting and for encouraging selfcriticism when doing so).
- Unique (for robustness)
The "-y" suffix cutes any formal word (specially nouns and verbs) and flows like shareful in a the morphological side (except the adjectives -ness suffix for clauses for settling disputes).
Shareful is a defaultly a noun shareful (for adding adjectives clauses), also useful as a verb (for regular activity) and as an adjective (for coding types of shareful objects and sharics).
Shareful is ever barely used by english native speakers, unless it is a quite logical and lovely construction (usable, useful, shareable, ...). Everybody else (the majority of the people) with a little knowledge of the english language quickly understand the brighter point of it (specially when comparing it with “sharing”).
-Shareful is a word that don't exist in english, regardless of shareable, useable and useful.
Shareful translations should be adapted to the local way of coding the act of lovely sharing. I.e. "compartiva" is one way to translate shareful into spanish, portuguese, italian, catalan and galego. Any spanish can either invite to it as if it is "compartiva" or it is "shareful". Both should work the same way, it is up to the invitor. It is important translating accurately the shareful default and the clauses, any specific word for a local shareful version whether existing and being related or created completely new can be created.
Shareful is copied with any other words that bringing any coding benefit to it. They only need the reference of as in shareful in their copied invitation i.e. xrfl, shary, churfle
churfle is the universalization of productive, careful and happy use, as in shareful.
Churfle or sharfle have a much lovelier phonetics than shareful. As a verb is more comfortable than to shareful, sharefulling, etc. It can also work as a noun better than shareful (i.e. instead of shamefulness, does need the invitation companion less).
Conventional law specify sharing only as coownership, and not as an specific joint or borrowed use. In conventional law, anyone should only appeal to consuetudinary rights for starting a claim. Costitudinary rights settling depends more on the subjective interpretation of the judge and that makes it being a less quality code i.e.
-Dear judge or else conventional authority, i only told him i could share the lighter with him and he did not bring it back to me, he stole it.
That judge could later interpret your sharing offer verbal phrase as if you had gifted that to that someone and closing your claim or could interpret liability in a breach of contract from that someone to you and punish him accordingly. In this sense, the SI (i.e. you have said instead: -I can shareful this with you or simply shareful) is helping you a little bit more with such authority in such that case.
If the conventional authority considers that you have mislaid a thing by offering it shareful (you are being a society damager for dumping carelessly something in the public arena), tell us or tell them that they should go and sue the writer of the lines of the shareful default invitation with a heavier charge due to the additional damage that is inviting freed i.e. The object (cultural work) the Shareful Invitation default is, if required, it is offered freed.
Shareful core a more lovely vibration than law codes for sharing i.e.
We want shareful to be pleasantly shared and ease the using of sensible smiles for inviting and for the acceptance of terms for sharing this shareful love, then we can be independent from the word shareful. We don't pretend to “hack the law”, we neither want to "crack the law", we “art code".
Conventional law is highly artificial and poor quality sophisticated code for creating an environment where people is being dependent on elite lawyers.
There is also the Lawful SI project of making a copy of the SI based on lawyers language (Lawful SI project) which will never be a parent of the default SI nor impede any of the rights offered with the default SI.
Damages are discouraged with the settling defaults and clauses (and clauses in general i.e. requiring a grant).
Everyone could use useful external tools i.e. trustful code with not yet very known people or get support help in the global or in the more local scope in communities arising around and because of any successful shareful application. The more that shareful offering grows around, the more damages dissuasion because less of those things you could get to use if you deliberately do a damage or don't compensate an accidental damage.
- Shareful clauses: Find the values inherent in shareful, and their posible posible limitings. For each value there is a restriction.
- Shareful clauses sources, explain in depth the clauses, including some use cases.