[PP-main] Roadmap and notes.

[Joakim Ziegler]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 11:05:22AM +1000, lists at itsg.net.au wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Joakim Ziegler wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 02:41:45PM +1000, lists at itsg.net.au wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Joakim Ziegler wrote:
 
>> I disagree. It's not that I think it's possible to retain full control of all
>> reproduction. In particular, small web sites, personal email, usenet, all
>> these are hard to control. But I reckon it will be fairly common for content
>> to show up on Peer Press that will be interesting to larger non-member sites,
>> like the Andover/VA sites, Linux Journal, Linux Weekly news, etc. Those sites
>> regularly pay people for royalties, and I expect they'd be interested in
>> continuing to do so, even if the content is available on other sites.
 
> absolutely. i feel however that this is something the member site should
> sort out with the author prior to "publishing", not with ppn.
 
>> The way to facilitate this (because it's a good way to make lots of people
>> publish on PPN) is to make the licensing smart, so that member sites who
>> reciprocate the favor can publish freely, while others are left out unless
>> they pay (on the articles and content labeled as "otherwise available for
>> pay" by the authors).
 
> i'm a little lost here joakim. i really want to understand we're you're
> coming from on this subject, as i think it could make or break ppn.
> if you can give an example i'd really appreciate it.

I'll give you some definitions. We define certain sites to be members of PPN.
What exactly is required of a site to be defined as a member of PPN isn't
defined, but the general consensus is that a meber site is one that also
gives something back. How much, and under what terms, remains to be discussed.

The rights to publish PPN distributed material varies between the member
sites and the non-member sites. The member sites can publish all PPN material
under the standard terms (probably, those terms are something along the lines
of "retain the copyright notice and include a reference to the author and to
PP). Anyway, the author is given a choice on the license indication whe wants
to put on the content for use by non-member sites. The idea is to have three
options, "free", "negotiate", and "not allowed". If it's "free", then
non-member sites can use it unedr the same terms as member sites. If it's
"negotiate", then the author needs to be contacted and an agreement has to be
reached (usually, this would involve payment), and if it's "not allowed", no
non-member sites are allowed to republish at all.

This should cover most situations. The only thing that would remain, is to
define exactly what makes a member site. And it gets a bit muddled here, do
we demand that they give back content? How much? Under what terms? Etc. This
is a good discussion for the licensing workgroup, though.


> peerpress-licensing
> peerpress-xmldtd

Yes, that was my idea as well. I'll have these set up soon.


>> I agree. The XML DTD is probably the most important, though. It'll need to
>> work before we can exchange info at all.
 
> i'm with you here all the way. i wish i could create dtd's 8^(
> i am more than happy to help with the different entities that should go
> into it though.

This will be the first part of the work the XML WG should do, so I hope
you'll be there.


-- 
Joakim Ziegler - simplemente r&d director - joakim at simplemente.net
 FIX sysop - free software coder - FIDEL & Conglomerate developer
      http://www.avmaria.com/ - http://www.simplemente.net/