Offered licence

OFFERED LICENCE

Licence is the lovely expression of the flove offer

 

 

Childs

Freed

Shareful

Swap

 

 

Apps

Download demo (wordpress)

See also: Worthing

 

 

Licences

ATITUDE :

ASPECT:

Autoritarian

Conservative

Pragmatic

Interested

Libertarian

Destination

close

near

known

granted

anyone

Purposes

common

approved

beneficial

improvement

anything

Giving

contribution

lend me

lend

re-lend

comment

Time / Space

use it with me

use it where it is

back after use

back on request

keep it

 

Clauses explained

(Introduction below)

 

 

Development of clauses

Mockups

 

 

 

 

Other docs

Types of Things

Types of Offers

Local offers

Glossary of Terms

Fears and replies

Institutional integrations

Conditions of Use

 

Tests

Que quieres

Que ofrecerías

Oferta local

Preguntas sociológicas

 

 

See now below Why, What and How to offer.

 

WHY

For trying to improve

Offer

For being more active

For feeling better

Make happier someone else day

Gift

Clear things i don’tuse

Show my gentleness

When is well done feels good

Lend

Almost always feels good

Make some thing more known

For getting basic expenses

Exchange

For doing more of what i like

For getting an additional income

 

Better licenses

Better markets

We want a space as free as possible for people to offer their things, and these are rewarded for their ecology, craftsmanship and accessibility. For example, what is offered in exchange but more directed towards these three values ​​should have visibility privileges, including sponsorship, automated in this market that we propose.

And not only that, we need spaces for offers of things more connected to our improved profiles, to our most significant neighborhoods and to our social projects that interest us the most, because all these features are very important information for anyone when choosing if, and what to use, how, with whom, or what to buy.

 

Better life

We are dependent on things to survive. Things, like our bodies, are separate matter. But all of them are part of us. Especially the things that we decide to protect or possess can be considered as extensions of our body, because this way it hurts when something happens to them.

There is also always a tension that pushes us to be less afraid of giving, because in the end «having to retain» leads to more problems than «not being afraid of having to keep». Something that is offered as a gift or in shared use acquires a certain «family atmosphere». By letting others use it, we are no longer «so» separated from other people either and create an abundance that directly or indirectly makes us feel better, because we feel more humanly connected, filled with a new reality with greater material abundance ( it does not take much exchange).

On the other hand, the more you want or need to protect your exclusive use of certain goods or the equivalence in a transfer (use of the unnecessary or exchange), the more you have concerns, the more you have to invest in security and the experiences / relationships become more scary, less loving.

 


Satisfactory use is beneficial

The final use of the thing magnifies the entire chain of production and of reasoning that has taken place so that the thing becomes useful and significant for that purpose. An agreement of use that does not cause damage is a fact that causes us as people to found a little more with the environment when using it. When the thing is used satisfactorily, the «apparent separation» of the thing dissolves, merging with its observers (bidder, applicant and other parties that enter into the agreement and use). Making things more and more used satisfactorily is just an excuse to improve relationships between people. That other people use your things directly brings a large personal immaterial benefit without practically doing anything.

 

More transparency, better

The social function of private property recommends that the authority over the thing serves so that the thing is cared for and fulfills the function (used) for which it was made. But we are interpreting that principle completely. On the contrary, we are using private property so that our things are not used by others, and thus things lose all their social function.

You have a house key that other people see but intuit that your offer is that «they can not use it and you think it is impolite to ask for it». That happens with the house keys and it’s normal, but not all things need the same restrictiveness. In fact, it would be very nice if we knew, in what way we could, others, get to use that key to your house (or anything else of yours) without you being offended.

Although it was difficult for me to get to use the key to your house, it would be more beautiful to know how I could do it than to feel that, for hidden reasons, I can not do it in any way. I think that you or anyone would leave the house more if, for example, they gave you a minimum confidence and a great bond. The minimum confidence can be given by our apps, and the great guarantee can be the dissuasion of a system-market in which we all want to be.

The concern to improve this culture of transparency of conditions is why all kinds of attitudes do not pass in vain, everything that is not said but is always done causes something even if it seems to be hidden. The way in which we protect the things we want can be more fearful or violent or less, but it is happening and something of footprint leaves. The important thing that we want to highlight here, is that all the fears felt, although we disguise them, they vibrate, affect and construct the present and the future where we live. And both the way we protect things and have fears for it, affects our being and our being in the environment.

Fear can be justified because we do not trust each other, but often we do not trust the other because we do not know anything about him. If we knew a little bit more about each other, I’m sure we could trust it a bit more, and maybe, instead of not offering the key to our house, we would lend it to him or her.