Slashdot Mirror
GPL for Books?
teebo writes "I'm am currently creating a large tutorial for Perl to take the place of many books in print on this subject. My goal is to have it be one of "the best" books there is on Perl. To achieve that goal, once it is written it will need constant updating and revision by The Community, perhaps even employing a cvs system. I would like to use some sort of license on it like GPL, but of course I cannot use that as it is for programs. What advice could you friendly smart cool people give me?" A similar question was asked with regards to databases and I mentioned the possibility of an Open Content License. Would such a thing help this issue as well?
YEAH, BABY.
must be a very slow day if this gets article gets posted.
Free Slash !
I think this is what you're looking for.
"The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which a Package may be copied, such that the Copyright Holder maintains some semblance of artistic control over the development of the package, while giving the users of the package the right to use and distribute the Package in a more-or-less customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable modifications."
The open content license mentioned previously also seems useful.
Hit send a little quickly (why can't the preview button and the submit button be on opposite sides of the page, I'm a clumsy clicker).
Anyway, this looks pretty good to me, but why not release it into the public domain? It's not like some evil corporation can grab chunks of text and hide them away where you can't see it, like when you compile source code into binaries. Sure, they could claim their ownership of their own changes, but what are the odds of that ever mattering?
Here is a copy of the Open Content License for IDG Books who are building The Essential Open Book Project. This is aimed at being a community generated "living guide to the planning, installation, and operation of a Linux system". I haven't been following this project for a while, but it does seem to be moving with rough drafts for several chapters and hierarchical structure mapped out for the majority of the book.
The only Good System is a Sound System
..it is not very possible to release a book without Sourcecode. :)
I've always wondered why all the Linux-HOWTOs and other documentation comes in a much stricter license than GPL-software.
I figured people like to get credit, but you can't combine full credit with the right of everyone to change the document, because it would be way to easy for someone to change the content, keeping you as author, and making you look like a moron.
But then I thought about the GPL. If it doesn't require any credit given, why should all the documentation require it? Am I missing something here? Does documentation require far different handling than software?
Is there really a difference between a book that contains tutorials, and one that contains GPL-code that can be scanned in, and used?
People seem to think it's obvious you'd need a different license. Why?
I, too, have thought for some time about some sort of GPL for published material. Our company does technical communications materials, mostly proprietary. But I've wondered about writing books that would carry a GPL-type license, and distributing them on the Web. All books contain inaccuracies and quirks. A true GPL-style feedback would produce constantly improving material. That's not important to everybody, but it is to many.
The Danish Linux book
``Linux -- friheden til at vælge''
(``Linux -- the freedom to choose'') makes use of the
OpenContent License
.
--
Unselfish actions pay back better
I have no idea why, they just do.
The problems with public domain that forced the creation of the GPL do not exist for natural-language documents.
To distinguish their licencing from public domain, they have to add more restrictions.
Sorry, I just can't come up with a better explanation than an irrational hatred of placing anything in the public domain, it seems like they always have to have just a hair more restriction than the public domain allows, so they can step on someone's toes.
Its been sometime since I looked at the GPL but I believe that it can also covers written works.
-- Eythain
Richard Stallman is drafting a GNU Free Documentation License as can be read in the Debian Legal mailinglist archive:t ml.
t ml.
http://www.debia n.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0001/msg00077.h
You might want to read the whole thread about Updating the OpenContent license which starts at:
http://www.debia n.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0001/msg00064.h
This concept might also be of use for things like online RPG or LARP rules - as better mechanics/concepts come to mind, they can be integrated and included in the whole. Of course, RPG rules tend to branch a little more than software... :)
www.opencontent.org
If you like the terms of the GPL and want it to apply to text, just (not to be taken seriously):
/* { Body of text here } */
:-)
main(){
}
And then GPL the sucker
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
'hey can i have a CVS account, just want to fix a few things. woops i deleted it all accidentally. tee hee sorry. now go buy my book you stupid clueless newbie untermenschen! zeig heil!"
Have you actually written any of your tutorial? Do you know who your intended audience is? What is the scope of your tutorial?
If you can't immediately answer these questions, perhaps you should actually produce something before you determine what license is appropriate for you.
There is no sense masturbating at the sight of the acronym GPL.
to find information on the WWW. Now, its easy to find the basics on any particular topic. But try to find specifics, and be prepared to be frustrated. For instance, nanotech. We all know what it is, but how many of us know how to do it?Who has the technical knowledge to construct the tools you need? Who knows what to do with those tools if you had them? Information like that should be as common as grass. We should all know it. But try to find out such specific information, and you will eventually hit a brick wall. The science community as a whole should model after GNU's example. Think how far we could go if everyone had access to the hows of cutting edge technology? Just because I dont have a Doctorate in science does not mean I could not contribute valuable data/ideas/theories. All I am saying is that since the Open Source Movement is proving itself time and again to be the best way to achieve progress, perhaps we should be thinking about which other "nerd" projects could benefit from its practices. Don't think, "Oh that will never happen." If the GNU people had said that, we would all be forced to use M$. (I like using M$ for some things, and I love having the CHOICE) Think about it. Apply it everywhere you can. Information should be free. Lets all make it happen. One man can dig a hole, but 100,000 men can move a mountain. Open Source your whole world, not just your software. Then you can really make the world a better place.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
The Open Source Writers Group has some good information and resources on this topic. They held a BOF as ALS which was very informative.
Putting information under the GPL or something GPL-like would be a good thing in my opinion. I would imagine that it would need to be both under this license and in most cases have some authorative source however. Not to restrict it from being modified but to make sure that the modifications are sound. Everybody is free to modify the Linux kernel but the modifications don't necessarily get rolled back into the main kernel (but the GPL forces them to be available for doing so if the modified work is distributed)
This is a good restriction, it keeps the kernel running fairly well. A similar concept can be used to keep incorrect information from being introduced to the canonical document.
I'd be willing to contribute to such a document, I'm sure many others are. I might be able to contribute sane information to the GNU Guide to GPL ECAD Software but the information I contribute to the GNU Guide to Kernel Development would be pretty suspect.
take the Cathedral and the Bazaar, do a code fork and replace all the text with the Circus Midget and the Fossilized Dinosaur Turd.
http://www.opencontent.org
The opencontent site can probably provide a good solution for people looking for a GPL-style liscense for written works. I don't know RMS's opinion on it, but it has a well-built site with lots of information.
I think the GPL is icky when people attempt to apply it to written works; one deals with software and software terminology like "the source to this program," it becomes a messy kludge when people attempt to apply the GPL. Leaves many areas open for interpretation. I wouldn't trust my written works out there without an appropriately-worded license. (that is, if i had any "written works" to begin with ;)
By GPL'ing(or an equivalent) the written word, more problems pop up then in the OPen Source world.
For one, I think it'd be REAL tough to get a publisher to print an Open Content licensed piece. Publishers generally work on volume - that's the nature of their business. If they've got something that can be freely copied and passed out legally, then a publisher probably won't wanna handle it.
Two, it's a lot harder to team0work on a book. Most source code can be effectiveluy black-bpxed - input goes in, output goes out. What's in between doesn't matter a ton. However, with books, not only is the middle really the meat, but there are thousand of ways to say it. I could rewrite parts of books to be more technical, but if the book is going for a more laid back look, well.....
Finally, thee's the option not to p[ublish at all. What about distributable CD-ROM's or something? That way, you could straddly the distance between OPen Content and Open Source.
Now someone please explain something to me. Why are there 400 different counter scripts? Is this really necessary? From what I can see you have a choice of SSI or non-SSI, a collection of data to log, and the choice of text, graphic numbers, or pure graphics to choose from.
Navigation tools are worse. Far worse. And trying to figure out the difference between mail scripts makes me physicaly ill.
As a Perl Newbie, if someone is going to put out an online Perl Manual, please, I'm begging you, include in your site the best 2 or 3 scripts for a certain function and encourage your community to focus on improving them rather than writing their own. There should be an SSI and a non-SSI version of each, simply because many free hosting firms do allow non-SSI scripts. (I know, lame... but if there is a good free hosting firm that allows SSI, I missed it.)
-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem.
No Zen is good zen
So, how about a license that is free for electronic versions, but exclusive print rights would be auctioned off. Monies could go to various free/open software organizations. Lots of details to be worked out (rights to versioning, in print/out of print) etc.
So long as the electronic version were available, the major "community" piece would be met. When I go buy books, I don't notice any significant difference in price between public domain works and copyrighted and I don't think we would in technical works either. Why not encourage publication with exclusivity, and skim off that tiny piece of the economic value of a book that ordinarily goes to authorship?
The issue has been cited with the existing Perl man pages that they have grown to an unmanagable size. The problem is that anyone can contribute material to them, but there is a genuine reluctance to cut anything written by another author. They are clearly huge and it is obviously hard for some newbiews to find a starting point. This issue is discussed at the Open Content web site.
This problem could be solved by finding individuals willing to act as the editors for particular sections. Make it clear to your contributors that their contributions will be proofread. They may not be accepted, or they may be reworded to make them more concise. Such a move will probably discourage some contributors, but it is probably the necessary balance to maintain a good book over time.
By the way, the home of the Open Content License is here.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
You will kown you have a good book when you get it down to 100 pages.
You will be idolized as a great author / editor when you get it down to 10 pages.
And don't tell me that somehow you will be rewarded in a Linux IPO down the line. Redhat and VA gave out special deals to linux developers in their IPO's, but that was basically charity, and most linux developers got shafter anyway. And why should those Linux developers rely on handouts for the money they deserved?
If you want to be a begger, GPL it. Otherwise sell it in a normal way, and keep some self-respect and money.
We at the Zope documentation project use Open Licenses to publish our docs. Just send ZDP an e-mail and they will reply to you with some ideas. Especially Martjin Faassen researched several different licenses.
There is also a Open Writers Group (they are about 80 people) which offer to help Open Content License projects to write and review text. Unfortunately I forgot their contacts, but I am sure you can find them on the net.
Much luck with your project!
Stephan-- Stephan Richter
It seems to me that what you want is a source of information that is dynamic. You state you want to make a book that other people can add to to keep it up-to-date. This is a good idea, but, maybe a "book" (you probably intend for this to be an online document) isn't the right format. It seems that a www site would be a perfect distribution method for the information you want to give away. Simply allow people to submit articles, updates, etc. such as Slashdot or many other news sites allow. You could have people (or yourself) organize the information that is recieved into a digest of sorts for people who are just now finding your site. And you could also have an updates section for people who frequently visit your site. This would also allow you to overview the additions to prevent totally offtopic ideas, or factually incorrect ideas from being included into your "book".
i think a written work, if edited by the community, would suffer. there are several aspects of the written word (and a good book, in particular) that numerous people working indepedently won't be able to capture
that's off the top of my head. these three things lead me to believe that it might be best to allow people to redistribute the book without charge, but don't let them redistribute altered copies. you can handle revisions yourself, accept suggestions and comments (in return for being able to duplicate the document freely) and maintain control yourself.
i don't think this is unreasonable. speaking personally, i am sure i'd rather read a good book by an intelligent author than slop written by a large community.
This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.
Seems to me that a book would fall under "other work".
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
Seems to me that the preferred form for making modifications to a book would be a text/word/html version (not a printed copy).
Of course, we could create a modified GPL (the BPL?) to spell this all out, if it wasn't for the darn copyright on the GPL! (seriously, why isn't the GPL released under the GPL?)
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Someone has already done what your doing, why don't you help him instead of repeating a lot of work:
http://www.ebb.org/PickingUpPerl/
I am surprised this wasn't mentioned before does anyone goto www.perl.com or www.cosource.com?
Ben.
I haven't really looked too, too closely at the various licences mentioned here, but what is to prevent someone from taking an open source text and putting all sorts of garbage and wrong information on it, and then publishing it under the authors name? With source code, it's not that big a deal, since the program will either not compile, or something bad happens to your computer. But with information, it will just be like spreading a rumour. Believable but wrong information. Of coures with more people looking at the text, hopefully most of the mistakes will be caught, but there is no garuntee(sp?).
Those are my thoughts from trying to think of a licence for a open-source Computer Science web textbook. Haven't written much of it, but the outline is kinda on my website.
Do you honestly think you can write one book that is better than as you say many?
I would rather you spend your time and energy updating and improving the existing Perl documentation. For example, go to http://www.perl.com/pub/1999/11/sins.ht ml#8.
when I see things like this, or the open sourcing of Unreal Tournament, it just seems to me that somebody wants people to jump in and do the work on their commercial project for no pay, and no credit.
Selling a book that you get other people to write and update sounds like a good deal for you, but I don't see how it's a good idea for anyone else.
Obviously Im missing something here.
The text of the book can be protected but DO NOT protect the code examples! If you restrict the code examples, the book becomes much less useful for many (most?) people. People take code from programming books. If you put a license on the code, the license should follow the people develop with the help of the book. Anonymous because I can't log in with lynx! Thanks for the support of standards slashdot!
the only way such a device could be developed, and controlled so as to be placed in actual use for the benefit of man, as opposed to spiked by the oil-banking-oligarchical elite, will be the lowly little gnu-gpl, somehow reconfigured to hardware devices.
the future might be upon us a little faster than we would imagine on this point, and i ask that the community keep this question, of open sourcing an hardware idea without losing control, that is without allowing a monopolistic opponent to seize control of it and then spike it, in the backs of their minds.
any pointers to prior work on this idea will be appreciated. tia.
I think the Open Content License has been shown to work quite well. Take, for example, Havoc Pennington's GTK+/Gnome Application Development, released from New Riders earlier this year.
Havoc has a page online with errata for the book, an online version is available, and there's even a CVS version available. That's the power of an open publication license - I think it's great.
----
How long till someone registers one of these?
Wiwi
--
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"
Rights in this Declaration Copying, redistribution, modification and production of derived works of this Declaration are permitted only under the GNU General Public License (GPL). The copyright of the expositional parts of this document is held by Junkbusters Corporation and is used here by permission under the GPL. This Declaration comes with no warranty. If clarification is needed refer first to the Guide to Interpretation of Declarations published by Junkbusters; for copies of that guide see www.junkbusters.com. Copies of the GPL are available there or from the Free Software Foundation, 675 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
So, although some posters have said that the GPL is inappropriate for documents, at least one document out there is GPLed. It is a net-based thing, tho'.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
Well, it is 'necessary', in a sense. The problem is that no matter what language you write in there will almost always be more than one way to do something. This is, after all, traditionally one of the basic tenets of Perl.
:)
I'm writing a perl script now and, even though it's not finished and it works, I already have 3 different versions that do the same job. Each one is smaller than the other and I change things as my ideas about how to solve the problem evolve. (Admittedly, I can't leave well enough alone most of the time and try to come up with a solution that uses the fewest lines of code. Luckily, there's no real deadline for this one
There are no 'best 2 or 3 scripts' for any given job. This is always going to be subjective. As you learn more perl you'll find better ways to do things.
The authors of such a book may include only two or three examples to save space but they may or may not be the 'best' ones.
Check out the Perl Cookbook if you haven't already (though I wouldn't necessarily recommend it unless you've been doing perl for a while). Read the whole perl faq and get Freidl's (sic?) book on regular expressions. You'll be glad you did (it will help for more than just perl too).
MOSR is a great site; I've been reading it pretty much daily for about four years now, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone who's interested in what's going on with Apple and the Mac world.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
When the OPL was first announced on slashdot in 1998 it was a very strict license. It didn't even allow for modification of an OPL'ed work. David Wiley responded to concerns that there wasn't much point to an "open" license that didn't allow for modification very quickly. David received lots of input from other parties both for and against modification rights in the OPL. He indicated to me in email that RMS was giving him some feedback and the OPL was more or less a knock off of the GPL with some stuff removed.
It seems that some academics who had interest in creating an open license for content were strongly opposed to giving up modification rights. Their concern was that their professional integrity might be a stake. The license you see now if the compromise that was made and it seemed really good at the time. David Wiley got feedback from everyone interested and had the modification made in less than a day!
When "flaws" were initially identified in the OPL the license's maintainer (David Wiley) sprang into action and found a solution that satisified everyone interested. Hopefully that any valid concerns raised here also find their way into a discussion about updating the OPL. But caution is merited in this. Are the people raising concerns here the same people who are releasing content under the OPL or are the complaints just philosphical? Does anyone who needs to or plans to release "open" content actually find the license to be faulty for their purposes?
It is really encouraging to see that RMS is working on new license for documenation. It is worth pointing out that the OPL is not just for documentation and is designed to cover written/non-software works of many kinds. An "open documenation license" may in fact have different requirements than an "open content license." RMS, more than anyone else, is qualified to come up with a relevant new license.
I'm an architect/designer of tents/mobile structures and I've often wondered whether the designs could be released under the GPL. If not, why not?
The full drawing set for a design resembles a source tree in lots of ways. What's a program if not a set of instructions for doing something?
% perldoc perl
and you can basically read the text of Programming Perl online.
Is there any service, similar to Freshmeat, but for content, where free content (Artistic, PD, OpenContent, etc) may be published? Such a service would be extreemly usefull.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
These guys know all about free texts.
:v)
http://www.gutenberg.org
Vik
Recently some people at my university have been talking about the possibility of designing a sort of evolving textbook. (This is totally in the "what if" stage, so nothing I say is official in any way.) The basic idea is that we would create an otherwise normal textbook, but there would also have a complete copy of the book on a web site. Users would be able to read the book there, and if they have questions, they could post them right in the text, with the actual text being the anchor point. Embedded discussions would evolve as users reply to one another. Because the subject matter for the book would be ODEs, we were investigating creating a set of open source tools for end-users to visualize and manipulate complex mathematical formulas. Anyway, this is something that we have been thinking about working on, and if anybody out there has input on the subject, let me know somehow.
I know everyone wants the GPL but what about BGPL where you can copy not print versions freely but only one source can print and sell copies.
The FSF does not use the GPL for books and documents, as it makes no sense. If you use the GPL for books, you put an unnecessary burden on publishers (they have to either include the "source code" -- the LaTeX or XML or whatever, as you say, with every copy, or they have to include a written offer to provide the source to every book buyer who asks for three years).
And the GPL is just wrong for some things. The GPL itself is not under the GPL. If it were, anyone could change it!
There are portions of books that the author will want to have included exactly. There are others where the book needs to be modifiable.
But the problem has already been solved. See, for example, the copyright statement on the GCC manual or the Emacs manual:
Notice that this license is much simpler than the GPL and accomplishes the desired purpose.
It wasn't flamebait. Maybe there is no logical reply that still supports open source.
- According to the GPL, You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
- You couldn't call the new licence the GPL, due to trademark laws (if you could, someone could just as easily create a completely proprietary licence and call it the GPL anyway).
Besides, the same argument could be made about releasing any software under the GPL. You'd have to check every single line of code for viruses and trojan horses, because someone might have added in an "rm -rfok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
"According to the GPL, You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."
/" somewhere."
:)
Fair point, however you would still have to read the licence file, beyond merely ascertaining that it is the GPL and that you therefore know what the terms are, in order to see the "prominent" notices.
"You couldn't call the new licence the GPL, due to trademark laws (if you could, someone could just as easily create a completely proprietary licence and call it the GPL anyway)."
I'm not at all convinced that trademarks would be useful there, there would be the potential for a prosecution for fraud if the aim was to deliberately mislead, I guess, but the problem is more likely to arise from people innocently tinkering with the licence, being able to sue them or prosecute them once the problem comes to light is not much of a solution.
"Besides, the same argument could be made about releasing any software under the GPL. You'd have to check every single line of code for viruses and trojan horses, because someone might have added in an "rm -rf
This can be a problem when using different version of the software, of course, but at least you can copy a single version as often as you like once you're happy with it. You can't just copy licence terms you're happy with from one product and use them for another
Now someone please explain something to me. Why are there 400 different counter scripts? Is this really necessary?
Remember that many people write programs simply because it seems like a fun challenge. Although a web page counter may not seem like much of a challenge, it would be good practice for a newbie.
And if you can't find a good one out of the 400 that are out there, you could always write your own!
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
There doesn't need to be a GPL for books or public documents because their contents are already free to use. All you have to do is properly cite your source. I don't think it is entirely necessary to have a GPL for this reason. Anything copyrighted is freedomain sooner or later anyway.
This guy just needs some sort of feedback system, not a new license.
Craig McPherson, the infamous Naked+petrified Guy posted this. Its his new project. He sucks and should die.
Just make a simple program that you run that displays your book on perl :)
"Using Samba" by O'Reilly is somewhat like GPL'ed. They allow the content to be posted and distributed, and its supported by the Samba team, so you know the info is good. I'm not sure on the technical legalities of it. I do know that even though its in print, they allow you do download a PDF of it and other freebies!
If you are afraid that using a very unrestrictive liscense will result in people modifying and distributing versions that you don't like, just PGP sign the "official version." That way, you can allow people to modify and distribute versions of their own, only they won't be directly associated with you since they're not signed by you.
As for the liscense you pick, thats up to you. Just don't be afraid to choose an extremely liberal liscense out of fear that you will completely loose control of the document. If your version is better than everyone else's, people will make sure to get the version you PGP-signed and not another. If a competing version eventually becomes better or more popular, so be it. That's the whole point anyway, right?
-Noom
Why wouldn't you use CVS for a text-based
project (except perhaps, for the reasons
that you might not want to use CVS for
anything...).
TeX / LaTeX is a programming language, as is PostScript. If you distribute your document in either of these formats, why can the GPL not apply to it?
I've published a document under GPL and I've (thus far) had no problems: see http://ieee.uow.edu.au/documents/Unix_Guide/Unix_G uide for details.
I work on a couple of projects involving both software and hardware:
The GPL is software specific, so I'm not sure what happens to hardware designs in GPLed projects.
Is there a hardware specific GPL-like license for these designs? Both of these designs are somewhat commercially viable (OpenBIOS for embedded projects with low to mid production and OpenRemote for consumer applications).
I would prefer it if my work could not be "embraced-and-extended." If a company modified a design, they would be obligated to release the details of the designs (schematics, microcode, etc).
Like Woz, I wish schematics came with everything. There are schematics for my bass amp inside when it is opened. That's a good thing. Schematics are generally no longer available with computers (except many embedded computers).
Sorry Havoc. Got carried away making links, not paying attention to what they pointed to. Argh. Great book in any case. :)
----
I posted this previously but /. didn't seem to think the story was worth running... OpenContent is currently updating our license per this announcement. It definitely sounds as if you want something like the Open Publication License; if it isn't exactly what you want, come help us fix it so that it is.
--------
meta4
dw2-dont-spam-me-@opencontent.org
http://davidwiley.com/
How about copyleft? All the GNU books and manuals are already published under this licence. Read more about it here. -Alexander
Maps are good too, showing where previous explorers fell or found their way. Maps show the connectedness of different territories.
But just a carefully key-worded troubleshooting index of people's fixes for troubles would be a boon too.
Advice for the original question:
There needs to be more work in this field. The Open Publication License often has to be modified in order to publish a print book and maintain some freedom to modify source.
The GPL has been great for software. It is not so good with print books. If you wish to move from an online book to a print book, you need to work with print publishers to do that. Otherwise you will have to print the book and market it yourself, and that is beyond the resources of most authors. Perhaps some day communities of authors will be able to publish paper books easily, but today it is much easier to write the book collectively online first. Such a public domain text could be done and should have no legal problems. It would be a good idea to bring together a small community of people who wanted to play a volunteer role in such a book.
Some chapters of Karl Fogel's book about CVS, (the Concurrent Version System, the source code control system used by many a free software project) are available under the GPL.
Bang the head that doesn't bang!
Actually, software legislation is modeled after printed works (that's why they're usually copyrighted and not patented =-\ )...so the GPL should apply very well to books as well. ------- Hugonz
I would rather pay $120 for 50 pages that, when read, tell me the same as a $70 1000 page telephone-style book.
:-)
Just look at a datasheet for an electronic component. Never more than about 20 (usually about 5) pages, and you get 95% of all the info you need to use it. And the other 5% you can (sometimes) guess. I wish those guys would edit my textbooks for college. 900 pages, one book was, and we used at least 10 of them in class...
This doesn't go for detailed techinical references, and other such necessarialy technical documentation, though.
Or is it that you do not like the current documentation, and you think you can do better? But given that the current documentation is maintained by the same people developping perl, some of them authors of books like "Programming Perl" and "The Perl Cookbook", and including Larry Wall himself, and given the dubious quality of many Perl books, are you sure you are up to the task of creating something better?
I agree the current documentation is far from perfect, but I think it's far more efficient to improve the current documentation than to write alternative documentation. As an added bonus, if you improve the current documentation, it'll be distributed with current and future versions of Perl, and kept up to date by the team maintaining Perl.
-- Abigail
The first 100 pages in your hypothetical example, having already been placed in teh public domain, are therefore free from copyright and those portions may be freely reproduced anywhere. I *am* a lawyer
O'Reilly is happily publishing Open Source books, including the Linux manuals and Using Samba, so there isn't a problem getting stuff printed.
In fact, I strongly suspect that the combination of a traditional publisher, the open source licence it's published under and the active involvement of the Samba Team to swat bugs will produce a book that sells in greater quantity than a traditional "print and hope it's correct" publication.
Besides, Samba will change over time, and the openness of the process will help us keep the book up to date.
--dave c-b
davecb@spamcop.net
I just saw from Amazon that Using Samba is selling quite well, thus justifying O'Reilly's risk in publishing it in Open Source.
--davecb
davecb@spamcop.net