Offered licence


Licence is the lovely expression of offer


Freed is the lovely expression of gift offer

Shareful is the lovely expression of lending offer

Swap is the lovely expression of exchange offer

Demonstration (wordpress)





Licences (explanation)















lend me




Time / Space

use it with me

use where it is

back after use

back on request

keep it

If the offer is a gift, Time / Space and Contribution are not shown.

If the offer is an exchange, the Time / Space is not shown.


See also: Review of a standalone offers implementation







Accesory documents

Types of Things

Types of Offers

Local offers

Glossary of Terms

Fears and replies

Institutional integrations

Conditions of Use


See also: Worthing

Tests (in spanish)

Que quieres

Que ofrecerías

Oferta local

Preguntas sociológicas




For trying to improve


For being more active

For feeling better

Make happier someone else day


Clear things i don’tuse

Show my gentleness

When is well done feels good


Almost always feels good

Make some thing more known

For getting basic expenses


For doing more of what i like

For getting an additional income


Better licenses

Having said this, it is more obvious to see how benefecial can be to offer a scheme of different clauses for offering things.

Better markets

We want a space as free as possible for people to offer their things in the best posible way for her-him and all.

A greater freedom in a market is achieved when the things that are offered are the more transparently offered. Things by themselves also bring more freedom when they are the more ecological, crafted and accessible possible.

But more importantly, things themselves are more material parts of us. So we also need such market spaces to be the better connected to our profiles, to our most significant localities and to our social projects that interest us the most. 

All these features are very important information for anyone when choosing if, and what to use, how, with whom, or what to buy. So for example, what is offered in exchange but more directed towards these values ​​should have visibility privileges, including automated sponsorship.

Actual marketplaces don’t care that much about this characteristics, so we have to try to develop a marketplace prototype to serve as a working alternative which to incentivate other projects to develop parts of them in these directions.



Better life

We are dependent on things to survive. Our body is in a struggle for survival already. The things such body&mind care about (protect, invest and posses) can be considered as extensions of our own body, yet another more concrete separated matter that reflect how we are.

When we let others use our things, we are no longer «so» separated from other people. The relationship created by the use of a the thing acquires a certain «family atmosphere» that brings abundance (reflects inner natural connectivity). The exact same fact happens (but in a more deep level) when we let others use own body…but let’s not digg further.

The problem that make us suffer so much scarcity of things (lack of connectivity in the end) is that we don’t offer more clearly for different reasons that we can overcome. We overprotect our things because we don’t trust much how others will use them, but we mistrust others mainly because it is hard to calculate our own future sustainability, i.e. We may regret to gift something we could rather better have kept misused but use it in the future or we could rather have sold it to get other resources we need or would be needing in the future.

But in a collateral sense, this opaque speculative calculation creates a scarcity tension, a focus in a fear on a future scarcity which brings some worries about having to (over)protect the thing or sell it for money. The collateral damage that any person who feels wealthy because (s)he has a lot of things is that the more you want or need to protect your exclusive use of certain goods, the more you have concerns, the more you have to invest in security and the experiences / relationships become more scary, less loving. «Having to retain» leads to more (or other) problems than «not being afraid of having to keep». So, a marketplace that wants to help us in having a better life through providing the things we need for now and for the future, should help protecting the things each one more care and let achieving their use, while also incentivates practices that increase the quality of the offered things themselves and the relations proposed with them.


Satisfactory use is beneficial

The final use of the thing magnifies the entire chain of production and reasoning that has taken place for the thing becoming useful and significant for that purpose. When the thing is used satisfactorily, the «apparent separation» of the parties and the productive cycles related to the thing merge a bit more, bringing a more meaningful experience because making things more and more used satisfactorily is just an excuse to improve relationships between people.

Letting other people using your things in a satiosfactory way for both and your surroundings directly brings a large immaterial benefit. So we just need to give sustainability security to offerors to feel more confident for letting others more freely using them because it is done for their own benefit as well.



More transparency, better

The social function of private property recommends that the authority over the thing serves for the thing to be cared and for the caretaker to be influenced for fulfilling the function for which it was made. But most of the times we are misinterpreting that principle completely. On the contrary, we are using private property so that our things are not used by others. But when the things are infra-used, property loses all its so-called social function.

I.e. You have a house key that other people (unknown, or even close) see but they have the default intuition that your offer is that «they can not use it, and you think it is impolite if they ask you 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 of your house (or anything else of yours) without you being offended by the question.

Although it was going to be difficult for me to get to use your house key 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 (which is neither very rational). I think that you or anyone would leave the house more if, for example, you can change the lock, they gave you a minimum confidence and a great grant for that. The minimum confidence can be given with information added at some apps, and the great guarantee can be the dissuasion of a system-market in which we all want to be (so we are more afraid of having a bad reputation there).

The main concern for improving this culture of transparency in using conditions is because everything that is not said, it is always done and as so, it always 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. All fears felt, although we disguise or hide them, they vibrate, affect and construct the present where we live. And both the way we protect things and the fears we have with them, affects our own 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 tend to lend it to him or her more easily. So there flove goes.


These are clauses that are standarized in the CreativeCommons project. Despite CC only or mostly applies to digital things (not scarce by design), they also have to cope with these undefineabilities. Other ones are: