[P2P-F] discussing the implications of the peer production license
michel at p2pfoundation.net
Thu Aug 29 05:10:04 CEST 2013
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?
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.
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?
What happens with the translations we’ve already published under a
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?”.
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
My understanding of PPL is that it fosters trust
that a newspaper that functions as a co-op and pays all its
collaborators, decides to republish our work without any sort of
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.
Stacco Troncoso, on behalf of Guerrilla Translation.
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the P2P-Foundation