3 ms·
That statement is good enough legal terminology. What makes you say otherwise? They just didn't define members, which are clearly - to me - the people with memb
by vmception 6y ago
That statement is good enough legal terminology. What makes you say otherwise? They just didn't define members, which are clearly - to me - the people with membership interests in an Limited Company, along with the managing member. Or shareholders in a Corporation.
I have no comment on the rest of the clauses so to anyone passing by, don't base any response to me as if I have an opinion.
- tzs 6y agoIt doesn't define "exploit the labor of non-members". What interactions with a non-member count as "exploiting" their labor?
- kemotep 6y agoDoes this requirement mean computer components that the software is written and deployed on needs to be "conflict free", and manufactured by other anti-capitalist firms? I don't know of anything that would meet that definition.
- tzs 6y agoMy guess is that what it is trying to cover is having employees who are paid an hourly wage or a salary only rather than being included in the profit sharing. If that is correct, there would be no restriction on them buying and using supplies from other organizations that do exploit labor.
- mmm_grayons 6y agoThat statement is good enough legal terminology. What makes you say otherwise? No definition of "exploit". That word means different things when read in a marxist, capitalist, or legal context, and probably different things in branches of each.