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?
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 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.
-- 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
The Open Source Writers Group has some good information and resources on this topic. They held a BOF as ALS which was very informative.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
----
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.
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.
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.
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...).
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. :)
----
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