|
RE: Commercial Links
by neshura (Chaplain) on Jun 01, 2000 at 00:40 UTC
|
- I put a link to that book at an online bookstore
I'm okay with that. I'd be more okay with it if that bookstore is, say, Powell's or Loompanics, than Amazon or B&N. :-)
- I put a link to that book at an online bookstore, but embed my personal associates ID in the link so if anyone follows the link and buys the book I get a referral fee (kickback).
Because you are having trouble making money with your perl skills? I might have trouble buying that line...
- I put a link to that book at an online bookstore, but embed an associates ID in the link that causes any referral fee to go to a non-profit orginization (maybe even one benefitting perl).
I don't know about this one. Seems to me that there wouldn't
be forced disclosure -- just the associates ID, and for
all I know a portion of every book I buy through Perl Monks
goes to support the Association For The Eradication Of All
Natural Life On Earth.
Maybe vroom should come up with a policy/guideline for this one. (It is his site -- maybe if someone's making money, it ought to be him, to pay for the site costs at the very minimum). I'd rather give a book kickback to vroom for keeping the site up then click thru banner ads for the same purpose.
e-mail neshura
| [reply] |
RE: Commercial Links
by Ozymandias (Hermit) on Jun 01, 2000 at 01:20 UTC
|
I don't think we (as individual users) should profit from our participation on a free forum/site like this. I'd say either vroom should establish a "kickback" reference for the site at the online bookseller of his choice, or you should post a link to the book on the publisher's site. 99% of the books we reference are ORA, anyway, so just link to the title on O'Reilly.com. Let the reader decide, based on their own preferences for cost/politics, where they want to buy the book from.
But now let's take it a step further. Suppose vroom implements a "projects" section, such as the section Perl Projects proposed by muppetBoy. Somebody comes up with a killer concept and a group of us work on it, with input and assistance from the community at large. Three months later, the killer concept is the new "killer app" and everyone wants to use it.
- Is the project automatically GPL? (I vote yes, others may not)
- Even as a GPL'd project, what happens if the group wants to market and sell their idea? Should PerlMonks get a cut? Everyone who contributed? Just the project members? Or every member of the site?
One of the things standing in the way of a great idea like the projects section is the question of ownership. Maybe we simply need to decide that each project is a special case, and the people involved will have to decide on their own. Thus risking the pain and torment of dying friendless and alone if the rest of us disagree. <g>
Personally, I would agree to something like 5% ownership to "perlmonks.com", and a "gentlemen's/women's agreement" that any member of the community who substantially contributes to the project be compensated if the project should ever be commercially successful. What do the rest of you think? | [reply] |
|
|
I rather think that all code that is posted here can be considered public domain unless stated otherwise - Perl offers us the possibility of creating non-GPL-infected source at our choice and I would find it a bad idea to infest stuff that is posted on Perlmonks with the GPL.
I know that the GPL is hailed as the saviour of Open Source (or was it Free Software) in certain circles, but I still think that Public Domain still offers the most of freedom to the user of the code - and that's what Perlmonks is about (IMO) - helping other people, and not pushing another persons (Perl-unrelated) agenda.
| [reply] |
|
|
I think the phrase:
This (module/library/product) is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.
Pretty much covers it.
Well thats what I think anyway.
| [reply] |
|
|
I would also vote for using the Artistic license under which
Perl itself is shipped.
Mik
mikfire
| [reply] |
RE: Commercial Links
by KM (Priest) on Jun 01, 2000 at 01:37 UTC
|
I would agree with any of those. If you link to a cool book through your associates ID, and I buy it, then I would be happy for you to get the 'referer' (pun intended) fee.
But, I think Ozymandias is going a bit far with side projects. The projects section would simply be to help people with ideas to hook up with people with tuits to do a project. You are complicating things by saying PerlMonks should have anything more to do with it than just that. If I happened to start a project, posted it here (as well as just told buddies) and a person or two from here helped work on it, I wouldn't give PerlMonks anything any more than I would give my ISP anything (after all, they supplied the connection to the internet to facilitate the project) if it were sold commercially.
Besides, why would you develop anything that isn't Open Source Software? :)
Cheers,
KM | [reply] |
|
|
Why? Rent, food, ISP charges, etc., etc.
I wasn't thinking of it quite like that. If PerlMonks simply provides a "meeting room" atmosphere, then no, they shouldn't get anything in return. If, on the other hand, vroom goes a step further and creates a section that's more of a mini-sourceforge for projects, then I think he (or rather, the site) should be compensated in some way. Judging from how much he's added to this site since $day1, I wouldn't bet against a lot more than just a meeting room.
<clarification>I just signed up for a username, but I've been lurking for several weeks/months, off and on.</clarification>
- Ozymandias
| [reply] |
|
|
In that case vroom/perlmonks.org should get exactly as much
compensation as SourceForge gets.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
RE: Commercial Links
by ChuckularOne (Prior) on Jun 01, 2000 at 17:46 UTC
|
Unmitigated NO!
But that's just my opinion!
Your Humble Servant,
-Chuck | [reply] |
RE: Commercial Links
by perlcgi (Hermit) on Jun 01, 2000 at 21:28 UTC
|
I'm a librarian by training. (So I'm a self-taught coder - which maybe explains a lot of lameish posts :) )
Anyways, if I'm referring to a book in a post, I'll always link to further info - some sort of authorative source about the title, that preferably adds value. Most Library Catalog records do not add much value imho - only basic bibliographic description e.g. Library of Congress full record for the Camel (This url might break as it includes a kind of pid)
Now I could be wrong but Amazon probably adds the most value, (in terms of the most reviews, sample chapters, recommendations etc, but I can't link there 'cos of the patents issue. Accordingly, I link to fatbrain.com.
If anyone has a better compromise, I'd appreciate learning about it. | [reply] |
RE: Commercial Links
by barZion (Beadle) on Jun 01, 2000 at 10:02 UTC
|
Any of those scenarios wouldn't bother me. I'd probably just take the title or ISBN and go to my favorite booksite anyways. Simply providing a link isn't compelling anyone to click on it. | [reply] |
RE: Commercial Links
by Bourgeois_Rage (Beadle) on Jun 01, 2000 at 19:24 UTC
|
I like the idea. At lest have the ISBN number for us to purchase it on our own. I don't think that I'd click on it, but if I did I'd want just the info about the book, not the option to buy it right there, right then. | [reply] |
RE: Commercial Links
by mdillon (Priest) on Jun 01, 2000 at 20:25 UTC
|
as some would expect, i am against any links to a bookstore.
even if it's a "good" bookstore, who's to decide?
the idea of commercial links in general does not bother
me greatly, since use to a publisher's or commercial
author's site can be useful. but i overt oppose salesmanship
on free forums. in my opinion, peddling here is as
classless as the telemarketers who (used to) call me and
requesting silly things.
other people have said it's OK because you can just take
the title/ISBN number and do what you want with it. i say,
in that case, the poster should simply display the title
and ISBN number directly, without the commercial element.
OOOOHHH, yeah. i love when my peurile, moronic
posts get those well-deserved negative votes. i'm sure it
was a knee-jerk^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H really well thought-out
choice on the voter's part. i adore my superiorly
enlightened fellow travellers.
please read the Voting
/ Experience System node, and learn not to vote down
opinions you simply disagree with (not that that node says
anything like that, but it should).
| [reply] |
