Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPL for Books?

Posted by Cliff on from the information-wants-to-be-free dept.

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?

7 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. 3 words: Open Content Licence by TheDullBlade · · Score: 4

    I think this is what you're looking for.

    --
    /.
  2. Whoops... (why not public domain?) by TheDullBlade · · Score: 3

    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?

    --
    /.
  3. Why not use the GPL? by Eythain · · Score: 5
    I'm not sure I see the reason for YAL (Yet Another Licence) here. Presuming you use a language like LaTeX or XML or similar, the analogy holds perfectly. The source here *is* source code in every sense of the word, so the GPL would work here in just the same way as it does on any other program. And everything else follows as expected. If this is what you want, then I *really* don't see any reason why you need a different licence... remember that the GPL is the General Public Licence.

    -- Eythain

    1. Re:Why not use the GPL? by Eythain · · Score: 3
      Okay, okay, so I'm replying to my own piece.. At least I'm honest about it. Just some new thoughts come to mind while reading the OC licence... I'm not sure I like it.

      It does not give you the right to source. Now, most people could easily forget that this is an issue for document, but it will be difficult to update the information if you don't have access to the source. Ever tried ammending a postscript? Not easy unless you have the filename.tex source.

      It doesn't allow you to sell the OC. This is much stricter than GPL. This is something that takes care of itself through the Market with GPL, but here you get regulation. I won't mind a hardback sold at a profit. Old fashion printing and distribution needs the profit to make sense. Electronic copy& distribution is free, paper mill equivalents aren't.

      -- Eythain

  4. GNU Free Documentation License by Carl · · Score: 5

    Richard Stallman is drafting a GNU Free Documentation License as can be read in the Debian Legal mailinglist archive:
    http://www.debia n.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0001/msg00077.ht ml.

    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.ht ml.

  5. Quick and dirty fix by Mateorabi · · Score: 3

    If you like the terms of the GPL and want it to apply to text, just (not to be taken seriously):

    main(){
    /* { Body of text here } */
    }

    And then GPL the sucker :-)

    --
    "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

  6. One problem with open source books by dsplat · · Score: 3

    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.