this is really great news Lionel, I am very happy that things are moving in this direction in France, if anything concrete advances, would be great is someone could write a paragraph for the blog, as this will be an important milestone, as you know, this is a dream come true, also hugely important is: http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Venture_Movement On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Lionel Maurel <[email protected]> wrote:
We are discussing and working on the concept of the PPL in France, in a group of the ShareLex initative. I guess Michel already met Anne-Laure Brun-Buisson, the creator of ShareLex ? Some people are interested by the PPL in France, especially in the field of the "Economie Sociale et Solidaire" (ESS).
We are looking to translate the PPL in french (not a lot of work, because the CC-BY-NC-SA has already been translated). But we would also like to create a logo and to write a common deed.
I think that's something Dmytri Kleiner could be interested in. Not a lot of work, but a significant impact on the appropriation of the licence by people. A dedicated website to host the licence, the logo, the common deed, a FAQ and some case studies could be very nice too.
I will inform you on the evolution of the discussion in France about the PPL.
Best regards,
Lionel
2013/8/29 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>
Thank you so much for these very clear answers Lionel, I'm sure it answers Stacco's concerns.
However, in the note to me and Dmytri regarding the logo and common deeds, this is beyond my own capability.
While I promote the PPL as an 'ideological' hack, I cannot find the time to work on its actual promotion and development,
Michel
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Lionel Maurel <[email protected]> wrote:
Bonjour,
Je vais essayer de répondre du mieux possible à ces questions, mais mon anglais n'étant pas très bon, je vais devoir le faire en français.
1.
In practical terms: How do we implement the Peer Production License? That is to say, do we display it as widget on our site, much like a CC license, or do we have to undergo some sort of formal procedure? If so, what are the requirements?
Par rapport aux licences Creative Commons, la Peer Production Licence a une faiblesse dans le sens où elle ne dispose pas encore d'un logo et d'un "common deeds" (version résumé en langage simple qui accompagne toutes les licences CC). En l'absence de ces éléments, le plus simple est d'indiquer que vos contenus sont placés sous PPL dans les Conditions Générales d'Utilisation de votre site (CGU ou ToS). Vous pouvez aussi faire figurer cette mention à un niveau plus fin sur chaque document, sous la forme d'une note. Dans tous les cas, il faut faire un lien hypertexte vers le texte de la licence.
Note à l'attention de Michel et de Dmytri : il serait vraiment intéressant à mon sens de produire un logo pour la PPL et un "common deeds" afin de la rendre pleinement opérationnelle. C'est une chose à laquelle nous réfléchissons en France d'ailleurs.
2. What happens with the translations we’ve already published under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License?
Normalement en effet, on ne peut pas revenir sur la décision de placer des contenus sous licence Creative Commons, sinon cela créerait trop d'insécurité juridique, surtout avec la dissémination sur Internet. Néanmoins, il faut savoir faire preuve de pragmatisme. Ici vos contenus étaient placés sous licence CC-BY-NC-SA. En passant à la PPL, vous ouvrez les possibilités de réutilisation par rapport à la CC-BY-NC-SA. Vous n'enlever des droits à personne. Au contraire, vous donnez de nouveaux droits à des tiers, puisque davantage de personnes pourront utiliser vos contenus. Dès lors, vous ne pouvez léser personne et il n'y aura personne pour venir se plaindre. Du coup, je pense que même si la licence CC-BY-NC-SA ne le permet pas stricto sensus, vous pouvez passer à la PPL sans grande difficulté. Ce serait différent si vous passiez de CC-BY-NC-SA à "Copyright All rights reserved", parce que vous restreignez alors les utilisations possibles et risquez de léser des tiers.
3. In my prior correspondence with Carolina she asked why we chose the non-commercial feature. I suppose that PPL, like the NC-Share-alike license, allows for commercial use of the material with permission from the license holder, correct?
Oui, tout à fait. La PPL fonctionne sur ce point comme une CC classique. Elle signale que certains usages commerciaux sont réservés et donc soumis à l'autorisation préalable du titulaire de droits. Libre à lui ensuite d'interdire, mais aussi d'autoriser ces usages, une fois qu'on s'adresse à lui.
Voilà ce que je peux répondre sur ces questions, en espérant que cela pourra être utile et en m'excusant pour la réponse en français.
Cordialement,
Lionel Maurel - Calimaq
2013/8/29 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>
stacco troncoso / ah uhm of guerilla translations has a very important practical query on the ppl, which I can't answer
I'm hoping dmytri and lionel can shed light on this/
Anybody else who could answer this query and should be included?
Michel
THE QUERY
QUESTIONS ON THE PEER PRODUCTION LICENSE
First of all, this license will only apply to the translated material we create, not the originals. At any rate, every translation we publish is done and distributed with full knowledge and permission of the authors and original rights holders.
Questions:
1.
In practical terms: How do we implement the Peer Production License? That is to say, do we display it as widget on our site, much like a CC license, or do we have to undergo some sort of formal procedure? If so, what are the requirements?
1.
What happens with the translations we’ve already published under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License? Is a retroactive change to PPL acceptable, in regards to this previously licensed material? In CC’s FAQ page, under the” What if I change my mind?” heading, we find: What if I change my mind? - CC licenses are not revocable. Once a work is published under a CC license, licensees may continue using the work according to the license terms for the duration of copyright protection. Notwithstanding, CC licenses do not prohibit licensors from ceasing distribution of their works at any time. Additionally, CC licenses provide a mechanism for licensors and authors to ask that others using their work remove the credit to them that is otherwise required by the license. You should think carefully before choosing a Creative Commons license. - I’m not totally clear about this, given that I’d like to apply the new license to all of our page’s content and, depending on the case, note exceptions for certain translations (or the images we use, which are property of the photographs and artists. Some of them are publishing under CC, some are not, but they’re always credited). I understand that anyone who’s republished our material while it was licensed under CC won’t be affected by the change. The basic questions here are: “Can I relicense the material already published in our page under CC as PPL?” and “What happens afterwards?”.
1.
In my prior correspondence with Carolina she asked why we chose the non-commercial feature. I suppose that PPL, like the NC-Share-alike license, allows for commercial use of the material with permission from the license holder, correct? (See: Can I still make money from a work I make available under a Creative Commons license?<http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_still_make_money_from_a_work_I_make_available_under_a_Creative_Commons_license.3F> )
My understanding of PPL is that it fosters trust among<http://es.creativecommons.org/blog/pmf/#faq_entrada_1004>peers. In the hypothetical <http://es.creativecommons.org/blog/pmf/#faq_entrada_1004>case that a newspaper that functions as a co-op and pays all its collaborators, decides to republish our work without any sort of monetary compensation for us or the authors, then the license would allow them to do so. In <http://es.creativecommons.org/blog/pmf/#faq_entrada_1004>an event like that, we’d consider this action to be discriminatory behaviour but, as far as consequences are concerned, only the reputation of said newspaper within the meritocracy of the Commons would be affected. I think that this sort of reputation-based deterrence is very interesting, even if it lacks any sort of legal instruments, as it can foster better relations and a “watch each other’s backs” dynamic in regards to unethical practises within the Commons and P2P movements.
That’s all for now, Michel and friends. Carolina and I are eager to learn more about the license. Guerrilla Translation not only wants to use it, but to introduce it by means of example to as many people as possible once we are sure we understand it completely.
Yours,
Stacco Troncoso, on behalf of Guerrilla Translation.
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-- *Calimaq *
Blog S.I.Lex <http://scinfolex.wordpress.com/> Profil Twitter <http://twitter.com/calimaq> Page Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/Calimaq> Univers Netvibes <http://www.netvibes.com/calimaq#Accueil>
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-- *Calimaq *
Blog S.I.Lex <http://scinfolex.wordpress.com/> Profil Twitter <http://twitter.com/calimaq> Page Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/Calimaq> Univers Netvibes <http://www.netvibes.com/calimaq#Accueil>
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/