Plan Storage Area

[Al Navas]

Great!

I almost missed this thread. I am all for it, too - limited to Contributors.


Al

[Frank Pellow]

It seems that most agree to limit acces to Contributors.

Keith, that appears to be what the majority of folks who have written comments in this thread agree to but it is not what the poll results reflect.

By the way, I am in agreement with limiting access to contributors. We need to come up with incentives to contribute and this is one such incentive. I hope that we can think of more.

[Jeff Horton]

Suggestion -- Why not try the idea but setting up another public subforum for 2-3 months and see how many people actually upload plans. It would give people a chance to see what might be offered and time to see how many people would actually offer plans. It think it is a good idea but just wonder how many plans would actually be offered? As I said, I don't use what most people would call plans.

[Ian Barley]

...Copacetic?...

Thanks Stu - I don't have to learn anything else new today!

[Mike Henderson]

I also favor only letting financial contributors access the files (that is, people who make a financial contribution each year to SawMill Creek).

One suggested change to the ownership issue - the owner should be able to designate if they want to put the plans into the public domain.

For example, I'm retired and I don't care who makes stuff from my plans and whether they sell it or not. If I submit any plans, I'd probably submit them as public domain.

Others may wish to retain the copyright and only extend limited rights to others, such as non-commercial use only.

From a programming point of view, it seems that this would only entail a choice from a list when the plans are submitted.

One other issue for discussion - should the submission be forever, or could the person who submits the plans be able to pull them back at some time in the future. The submitter may develop an improved design or may find problems in the original submission. Or they may just decide that they don't want to share any more.

Mike

[Jerry Strojny]

I think this is a great idea. As most things in life I see "good things", and "bad things". "Good things", like getting ideas from others or getting plans as a starting point for my project. "Bad things", like potential copyright issues, or a lot more work for Keith and company)
Personally I would find this a great resource. And limiting it to contributors sounds fine with me. If I were a lurker and wanted to get some plans....I wouldn't blink at spending the $6. It's cheaper than any plans you can buy "off the shelf" and I'd be supporting a great forum and future support for the said project. (IMHO)

[Karl Laustrup]

Great idea Lee. Who knew that something like this would come about after a simple request for some plans for a golf club storage rack. And publicly, thanks for those plans Lee.

I'm in favor of limiting access to contributors, however Ian makes a very good point in the manner of the donation.

Karl

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

I think the plan creator should have some compensation. Some $$ also should go to facilitate the bandwidth and Dasdi space.

However, a problem might arise where plans are purchased. I doubt that SMC can safely distribute those.

Some formal procedure regarding ownership of the plans is also important. The creator should not lose control or ownership.

[Frank Pellow]

I think the plan creator should have some compensation. Some $$ also should go to facilitate the bandwidth and Dasdi space.

However, a problem might arise where plans are purchased. I doubt that SMC can safely distribute those.

Some formal procedure regarding ownership of the plans is also important. The creator should not lose control or ownership.

I am not in favour of compensation for the plan creator. It is just another way for members to contribute to SMC. Anyway, I am sure that paying the person who posts plans woould create all sorts of problems for us.

[tod evans]

what the heck......it cost me .02 everytime i give advice now cliff`s wanting to pay folks for drawings ......i think the coolest part obout smc is everybodies willingness to share knowledge without compensation, besides i`d have to up the ante to 2.00 for folks to stomach my scribbling and i just don`t have the money to spare......02 tod

[Keith Outten]

We don't want to get into any kind of sales program right now, any plans that have serious commercial value probably wouldn't be shared publicly anyway.
I think our Members will help us out and upload their plans and projects knowing that it helps us to pay the bills. Owners of Project Plans should include their copywrite information and details in their document files.

Frank, I'm watching the poll numbers but the first option is a deal killer, how can we increase services without revenue to cover our costs. I'm all for the simple route of encouraging Members and Guests to contribute, this keeps the cost less than one magazine which is a bargain for a years worth of entertainment and information.

.

Our Terms of Service already cover any text or data that is uploaded to our server. Note that according to our TOS the Member retains owership.

B. Licensing

With respect to text or data entered into and stored by SawMill Creek, the submitting user retains ownership of such Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SawMill Creek. In each such case, the submitting user grants SawMill Creek the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

[Frank Fusco]

Great!

I almost missed this thread. I am all for it, too - limited to Contributors.


Al

This would be creating classes of membership. Do we really want that?

And, a paid member might legally have grounds to protest his comments being moderated. e.g. "I paid to be here, you have no right to censure me." I'm just supposin'. Do the owners want to find out the hard way if this is the case? Methinks not.

[Dave Richards]

Wouldn't requiring a paid subscription to the site to access the plans be a violation of the Google Sketchup ToS concerning personal use?

David makes a good point. I don't know the answer. Perhaps since the person who draws his plan in GSU isn't selling the plan, it doesn't matter. Drawings done in Google SketchUp could be banned but there are a number of us who use SketchUp Pro 5 who aren't subject to Google's limitation.

[Jay Knoll]

I'm with Frank and Tod, no reason to compensate anyone for plan submission

Jay

[Karl Laustrup]

While thinking this whole thing over I've come up with another idea.

How about contributors get access to the plans free, while non-contributors could access the plans and pay a fee to do so. Perhaps a small fee to access the pages and then a small fee to download each plan, with all fees going to SMC.

I don't know if all that is doable or not, but it popped into my little pea brain and I thought I'd throw it out here and see if it sticks.

Karl