From PPP

Contents 1 Public private is contradictory, isn't it? 2 How public is ppp.org? 3 Public vs Free... 4 So, who is and who is not Public? 5 Why should i invite people to co-use my goods? 6 How to declare my goods PPP? 7 What can i do if the co-users return in bad conditions the PPP? 7.1 What would PPP.org do in that case? 7.2 Which unwanted burocracies do you refer to?

[edit] Public private is contradictory, isn't it?

Yes & no. With this Invitation a private owner invites the public to use his/her property.

A completely objective definition for Public can't be achieved, the aproaching is well worth. Let's see 2 examples:

1. The GNU General Public License is even more contradictory because the Licensing text doesn't allow derivates not owned by the Free Software Foundation which also gets some exclusive co-owner rights on the licensed good.
2. Most of the Public services-goods you have in your country are just public for Country's passport holders and maybe are not as Public as advertised because other reasons.

[edit] How public is ppp.org?

ppp.org's contents are on the public domain.

...

[edit] Public vs Free...

Public(as in PPP) includes "Free as in freedom", "Free as in beer" and "Free as in available".

[edit] So, who is and who is not Public?

When you are declaring a thing PPP you are welcoming all Humans&Animals to co-use it. Global audience, no restictions per type of people. If you are an owner who don't feel confident about it, you can:

1. Add notification requirements and maintenace and/or insurance costs to be supplied
2. Advertise it (offline&) just to some people from your town/city
3. Remember that with the PPP invitation you can ask some unwished co-user to stop co-using your Good or threat him about (legally) sueing him/her with robbery charges if (s)he doesn't obbey you.

toka: imho this is to strict. public means imho , that the good is in public conversation. there should be no right to use, but a right to publicly talk about not getting the right to use etc etc. this gets goods into public conversation, private goods are excluded from public conversation. if there is a right to co use or not, depends on the good and on the group of people, which take care of the good.

[edit] Why should i invite people to co-use my goods?

For maximizing your resources. With every person that co-uses a not-in-use-otherwise thing from you, you are getting benefits....

[edit] How to declare my goods PPP?

Just say "This is PPP". At PPP.org you can find tools for saying it louder...

[edit] What can i do if the co-users return in bad conditions the PPP?

First we should make the difference between "The PPP Car hasn't got the tyres as when i declared it PPP" from "It was your fault in the Car crashing and now my insurance is going to grow, you should pay me the difference".

It's firstly recommended to don't require maintenance for avoiding burocracism into the relationship. By the owner declaring that is refusing to compensation per co-use, he/she is not automatically refusing compensations per accidental damages done by co-users. which have to be compensated. Owners can add Arbitrators who may decide this kind of posible disputes.

[edit] What would PPP.org do in that case?

In the case that you choosed back@ or resolve@ppp.org to be Arbitrators of your Good . ....

There is another posibility which open a broader debate which is being discussed: "The person who don't compensate a damage or the person who makes false acusations about unsocial behaviours will be excluded from the co-using rights given in the PPP declarations, so it can be considered as a thief if he/she goes using any other PPP unless the owner especifies another conditions for the person outside the PPP framework."

[edit] Which unwanted burocracies do you refer to?

Strict suppliance of maintenance would mean including conditions like:

1. This PPP is granted to be in perfect condition by XXXXcentralised certifier orgs' list
2. (In a PPP Car) Per each kilometre, You should Compensate:
   1. 0.0009% of the Tyres
   2. 0.0008% of the Engine
   3. ...

In the same standards as shown (not in $).

It's unwanted even having to estate an objective sustainable line, see:

1. ...
2. It will be a non-sustainable co-use if the co-use implies a loose of more than:
   1. 0.0009% of the Tyres
   2. 0.0008% of the Engine
   3. ...

Which if so, has to be compensated by the co-user to the owner in X.XXXhours per 0.001% of extra damage.

PPP tries to grant security and sustainability by having a strict Good's usage preference scale, by the owner keeping always the authority on the PPP, by recommending to add back@publicprivateproperty.org as a co-owner, etc. which hopefully will compensate with other values the Good's normal deterioration.