[PP-main] Roadmap and notes.

[lists at itsg.net.au]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Joakim Ziegler wrote:

> I really don't see this as tying the two together at all. PP doesn't really
> want to get involved in the payment and compensation process at all, at least
> not at this point. We might, of course, and I think this is natural, get
> involved in pointing out illegitimate use of our content, twe're probably in
> a position to do so with a little more gravity than if a lone author should
> do so.

agreed.

> The main point, however, is to let the author have a choice in what they
> allow and disallow. MAking these three options the possible ones is probably
> a smart move, it makes it easy to relate to for the content owners.
> 
> Authors should indeed be rewarded fairly, and I think that in the case that
> the initial publication happens in an existing weblog or similar, that's the
> natural place for the payment to come from. However, I'd really like to see
> PP become a good venue for first-time publishing as well, that is, an author
> who doesn't really know where to submit his/her stuff could just publish
> straight to the feed, and people who liked it could republish, under the
> terms of the  license. In that case, it'd be very important for the authors
> to be able to exert this sort of control for them to want to publish through
> us at all.

ok, i guess this is fair 8^)

> As mentioned earlier, I think the main discussion would be to figure out what
> exactly it means to be a "member" site. That's an area I would like to see
> good ideas in.

i will try to put some ideas together for this then.

> However, your analogy isn't really correct. The sites that reuse PP content
> are not like the end users of free software. In fact, they're much more like
> people who incorporate free software as parts of their own product. In that
> case, you'll find that all the most successful free software licenses indeed
> do impose restrictions on how you can do that.

good point.

- avi