Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Project Gutenberg 2 Raises Some Hackles

Posted by timothy on from the eggs-for-omelets dept.

An anonymous reader writes "LISNews.com reports on a new web venture called Project Gutenberg 2, offering access to electronic books in Adobe eBook format on a paid membership basis. Some Gutenberg volunteers are concerned about the use of the PG name in such a context. The news raises questions about PG's ongoing commitment to the ideals of free distribution and nonproprietary formats. Last year PG celebrated the release of its 10,000th title, accomplished with the help of many volunteer proofreaders, many of whom aren't happy about charging people to view these titles in Adobe eBook format."

102 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. This seems to go against the whole... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...idea of the original project :o(

  2. Bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it goes to fund the free books, it's a godsent.
    Project Gutenberg is one of the top 10 best things to happen to the internet.

    1. Re:Bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      They can always fork and continue with their own codebase, right?

    2. Re:Bah. by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What gave you the idea that it was going to fund free books or the original project gutenberg? This looks like an attempt to make money from someone else's work to me......

    3. Re:Bah. by SurfaceMount · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is contained in some/all of the PG ebooks, this means they have to pay royalties to PG? If so, its a good thing, helping to fund them.

      "Special rules, set forth below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext under the Project's "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark."
      Special rules, set forth below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext under the Project's "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.

      "Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the net profits you derive calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are payable to "Project Gutenberg Association/Carnegie-Mellon University"

    4. Re:Bah. by lee7guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, just like most of the bigger Linux distro makers out there. Commercial Linux distros are bad things, right?

      From my point if view, most things that help promotes free projects and also add some value is an added value. If the ppl complaining doesn't like what's happening, they should have thought of ways of protecting themselves beforehand.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
    5. Re:Bah. by Nursie · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hmmmmm. Linux distros are affiliated with Linux, they make no secret of it. They usually develop products and projects that contribute back to open source, and are generally ethical and a good thing.

      These guys are using someone elses name and charging for their work.

    6. Re:Bah. by lee7guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. Their use of the project's name doesn't seem very nice, but some people seem to be complaining because they are converting PG's texts into proprietary Adobe eBook format and charge for the effort. I really fail to see how that is a problem, as long as the original, vanilla text files are still out there.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
    7. Re:Bah. by cioxx · · Score: 3, Informative

      GPL wasn't meant for such things as static (as in finished) text. That's why Creative Commons license was created to fill that hole. L/GPL serves well when living organisms are concerned, such as codebase, because it constantly evolves. Once a book is transcribed, corrections and/or additions won't be necessary majority of the time.

      From what I understand, a specific license would fit the bill to swathe Project Gutenberg library, such as Attribution-NoDerivative 1.0. They have few options under which authors can license their content properly. As evident in the article, placing confidence in individuals who say they would do the right thing just isn't enough in these modern IP-dominated era.

      Fortunately, all is not lost. There has got to be more to the story than just rumor based upon a spinoff website where they try to capitalize on original PG fame, however small it might be at this point.

    8. Re:Bah. by Felinoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There has been a few Linux desros who attempt to violate the GPL (not return source) as well as a number of Linux projects.

      There have also been a number of individuals who have attempted to clame ownership (assert trademarks, patents and false copyrights).

      SCO is currently doing both. Clamming ownership of the existing Linux and then selling Linux as a closed product.

      Now we need to wait for PG2 to sue the original project over a patent on plain text PG2 bought.

      --
      I don't actually exist.
    9. Re:Bah. by flossie · · Score: 3, Insightful
      From what I understand, a specific license would fit the bill to swathe Project Gutenberg library, such as Attribution-NoDerivative 1.0.

      Given that the texts in Project Gutenburg are all out of copyright, does PG have any (moral or legal) right to impose restrictive licences on the library, and if so, would it be possible to enforce such a licence?

      --
      flossie

      Write now. Defend liberty

    10. Re:Bah. by Gleef · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nursie asks:
      What gave you the idea that it was going to fund free books or the original project gutenberg? This looks like an attempt to make money from someone else's work to me......

      The fact that one of the few restrictions on the Project Gutenberg files is that any use of the files or trademark for commercial sales requires a royalty payment of 20% of gross profits to the project. The exact legalese can be found at http://gutenberg.net/howto/header-howto.txt.

      --

      ----
      Open mind, insert foot.
    11. Re:Bah. by hesiod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > does PG have any (moral or legal) right to impose restrictive licences on the library

      Wasn't the whole point of PG to be that this stuff is free to use? Well, PG2 (despite the shady naming) is free to use them too. You can't say "anyone can use this, except my competitor." I realize they aren't exactly competitors, but it's the same idea.

  3. TM Registration by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Informative

    This won't be any problem at all since the Project Gutenberg folks remembered to register their trademark.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:TM Registration by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Informative
      This won't be any problem at all since the Project Gutenberg folks remembered to register their trademark.

      The "Project Gutenburg folks" didn't register the trademark.

      You and three mods didn't read the linked article, which is actually a blurb that quotes the real article, to wit (emphasis mine):
      "Over the weekend a Project Gutenberg volunteer list was buzzing with all kinds of questions for PG founder Michael Hart, who personally owns the Project Gutenberg trademark."


      --
      Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
    2. Re:TM Registration by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So given that Project Gutenburg(tm) is actually affiliated with Project Gutenburg 2(tm), and that there's nothing on the Project Gutenburg(tm) news page about this... I'd guess the list reponse went something like this:

      Michael Hart: PWNED!
      Project Gutenburg(tm) volunteers: DOH!

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  4. still free by Underholdning · · Score: 5, Informative

    As far as I can tell the books are still available in HTML. It's just that if you want them in PDF, then they charge you a fee. I have no beef with that.

    --
    Underholdning.info
    1. Re:still free by nuffle · · Score: 5, Insightful
      As far as I can tell the books are still available in HTML. It's just that if you want them in PDF, then they charge you a fee. I have no beef with that.


      Actually PG books aren't available in HTML. Not even in the sense that they're relatively unformatted text embedded in an HTML page. Rather, the books (or plays, manuals, etc) are generally stored as zipped vanilla-text files.

      It's an often complained about problem, since there's no markup to identify authors, titles, chapter headings, etc. The PG administrators use plain text because they don't want to require readers to use fancy software to read (be it proprietary or not). The consequence, though, is that it's difficult to use fancy software if you want, since it's difficult for a computer program to parse the books.

      So, the service offered by this company is non-trivial and is fulfilling an expressed desire. The fact that people are willing (well, we'll see) to pay money for this service indicates that the PG administrators have underestimated (or just ignored) the need for machine-parseable text. I personally wish someone would xml-ify these books, so that there would be a number of high-quality open source PG readers out there.
    2. Re:still free by femto · · Score: 5, Informative

      The HTML Writers Guild is translating Project Gutenberg texts into HTML.

    3. Re:still free by lee7guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I personally wish someone would xml-ify these books, so that there would be a number of high-quality open source PG readers out there.

      Get your butt over to Project Gutenberg XML then and start helping out.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
    4. Re:still free by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's oft complained about by the lazy or uninformed. I personally LOVE the plain ascii text versions. I am able to convert them EASILY to my eBook's format and extend the life of that device that they decided to discontinue and all the books for it.

      Also I was able to convert one to a Sony Bookman CD to be read on a friends Bookman... a reall old failed attempt at a ebook reader that the screen utterly sucked, was huge but was cool in the fact it had a 3" CDROM drive in it.

      the plain ASCII format is the absolutely MOST valuable format for the PG books, conversion to other formats do not take much time at all if you have the tools.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:still free by Spacejock · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you're running Windows (or Wine on Linux) try my freeware ebook reader yBook

      I wrote it specifically for the txt files on Gutenberg. They hard-wrap the lines at 76 characters, this prog unwraps them and puts the book back into paragraphs.

      This plug brought to you by a shameless karma whore.

      --
      Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
    6. Re:still free by utopyr · · Score: 5, Informative

      I participated in this when it started up. It's dead in the water, becalmed, caught in the horse latitudes, so far as I can tell.

      For example, take a look at the dates attached to the marked-up texts in this list. A shame--folks were mighty excited.

      The Project Gutenberg XML mentioned earlier here was also exciting, but I've been off the mailing list a few years, and am having trouble finding its archives now. Anybody have more luck than me? As I recall, one of the unanswered threads that ran through it was what to do in the TEI headers, since TEI was an attractive choice for a mark-up vocabulary. It is not that obvious how to accommodate the Gutenberg boilerplate and metadata appropriately in the header.

    7. Re:still free by c · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually PG books aren't available in HTML.

      Not directly. But various places like http://www.blackmask.com/page.php republish many, if not most, PG books in other formats.

      c.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    8. Re:still free by Zigg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, that was a shame, I had hoped the HWG project would take off too. But then again, it always seemed to me there were very few civic-minded amongst the HWG when I was a member; probably due to the fact that you really didn't have to do anything to "join" and a lot of people saw it as a quick way to load up their resume when web jobs were hot.

      But, there is still vindication. Pluckerbooks, in addition to making ready-made pdb files for Plucker, also provides you with the full HTML for their books, which are often Gutenberg conversions. I always read them in Plucker, but the HTML is also useful for non-Palmers.

    9. Re:still free by dmoynihan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, most of the PG 2 titles are HTML that I did of PG texts for my own site (that one I also scanned with the distributed proofreaders so it sees more moral), but then PG 2 has another 48K books that aren't on Gutenberg, and might just be worth paying $8.95 a year to access, something the article doesn't make clear.

      I've also let it be known that Dr. Hart is welcome to use my HTML as he sees fit, not pushing the issue because there are other volunteer initiatives working on this.

    10. Re:still free by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Project Gutenberg's goal is to create books in electronic format. Marking up in XML takes time and effort; not a lot, perhaps, but it adds up over 10,000 texts. That time and effort has been used to make more texts available.

      If someone else wants to mark the text up, no one will object. Unless you're willing to do so, though, there's no point in complaining that something done for you for free isn't done the way you like.

      TANSTAAFL.

    11. Re:still free by poptones · · Score: 3, Insightful
      but then PG 2 has another 48K books that aren't on Gutenberg, and might just be worth paying $8.95 a year to access, something the article doesn't make clear.

      And so one would think these titles, since they are part of "PG2," are also of expired copyright?

      So what's then to stop someone from payng the 8.95, downloading those 48k typeset and proofed texts, and then contributing them to the real PG?

    12. Re:still free by dublin · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It's interesting that you mention blackmask.com in your rant against PG2. Interestingly, David Moynihan, who runs blackmask.com has said both there (and here on /. in this very topic, search for "dmoynihan") has no problem at all with PG2, and thinks what they are doing is a very good thing.

      Seriously, what we see here is nothing more than the anti-capitalist ranting of a bunch of GPL bigots, who can't stand the idea that someone might actually *profit* (gasp!) from the sale of bits. (And, of course, the PG license expressly permits this sort of use, as it should. Like the BSD, Apache, and X licenses, it is more concerned with good resources being used and propagated than in advancing an anti-commerce political agenda...)

      Here's a quick excerpt from blackmask.com on the issue:
      A lot of the HTML coding on PG 2 was done by me with the notice change, but that's cool; not so much because Mr. Guagliardo has previously purchased a CD set from me, but rather that I've in the past mailed .zipped HTML disks to Dr. Hart, encouraging him to use them as he sees fit.

      What's lost in the discussion is the fact that PG 2 has 48,500 more books than PG 1 (and 45k more than me), and may be a prototype alternative to something like NetLibrary, which used wrapped PG titles as part of their bid to get everyone to sign on--(PG 2 gets bonus points in my opinion for adopting the URL Netlibrary.net on their sign-up page). It's quite possible those 40k+ extra books are worth $8.95 a year.
      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    13. Re:still free by justins · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So, the service offered by this company is non-trivial and is fulfilling an expressed desire.

      Oh, it's pretty trivial, in the scheme of things. Writing a book is non-trivial. Acting as the publisher that brings a new book to market is non-trivial. Correctly transcribing an ancient book into electronic format is non-trivial. Researching the legal issues involved in releasing old books is non-trivial.

      Tweaking pagination and saving a file to pdf is, well, pretty trivial. Ditto on putting the files up on a web page and creating a web storefront to sell the files.

      And I wouldn't have any problem with them profiting from their trivial improvements to Project Gutenberg's work, but they shouldn't try to confuse the public into believing they are a replacement to Project Gutenberg. Of course, that's likely to be the only way they could sell such trivial improvements.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    14. Re:still free by hankaholic · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not complaining about it not having been marked up. I _am_ stating that saying that ASCII text is more useful than ASCII text + markup (ie, XML) doesn't make sense to me.

      --
      Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
  5. Lottery Grants by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Here in the UK, a proportion of the profits from the National Lottery are used to finance public projects in The Arts and sports.

    It strikes me that Project Gutenberg, as a valuable educational tool, should be a prime project to receive lottery grants (not just from the UK) to ensure that it remains entirely free to use and publishes documents in formats suitable for all to use - both proprietary and open formats.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    1. Re:Lottery Grants by 0x0d0a · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Project Gutenberg is nonpolitical (and given that they can only use out-of-copyright works, not even particularly topical in their choice of additions).

      Project Gutenberg doesn't really directly compete against any companies that I know of, and facilitates people obtaining things in the public domain. I think that Project Gutenberg would be an excellent destination for grant money. If I had some way to vote on US grants going to Project Gutenberg, I certainly would do so.

      --
      May we never see th
  6. Some Companies... by Doomrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...I mean, would you actually have the nerve to steal an organisation or free project's name? I'd love to be reading Slashdot the day somebody comes out with Linux 2 or something.

    1. Re:Some Companies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Linux 2 has been out for quite a while. In fact they're up to 2.6 now!

      GET WITH THE TIMES MAN!!

  7. And in related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    the Humane Society...2!!!! Now accepting unwanted pets and animals from the community which we will be selling to be used in scientific research!

    *btw We are not associated with the original Humane Society.

  8. Issues by L-s-L69 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Project Gutenberg (the first one) was fantastic, it allowed me to download books in lynx that i could read with joe on a 486 when i first got online. I read books that normally I would never pick up as well as downloading plays etc for research.

    Paying for ebooks i have no problem with but why use the PG name that so may have come to associate with the free PG.

    Even if they do put this on the front page...

    " Project Gutenberg 2 is not affiliated with the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and has received no funding, materials, or any other support from the Foundation. "

    1. Re:Issues by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, the name was chosen entirely at random, in fact they didn't even know of the first one, and just stuck a "2" on the end cause it's pretty.

      I hope PG has lawyers and covered their bases. This has shades of 1999 and Flooz and "gaining mindshare." I hope they go bust.

    2. Re:Issues by JimDabell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Paying for ebooks i have no problem with but why use the PG name that so [many] have come to associate with the free PG.

      You answered your own question right there. They are using the Project Gutenburg name as it's already fairly well-known for being a good source of books.

  9. Sue them? by MrIrwin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It seems that operations that work on a "Pay for rights" model are very happy to sue whenever a "Pay for Service" operation has a name that remotely infinges on thier namespace.

    Should the reverse be valid? Perhaps in the first instance PG could politely request that they alter thier name.

    What I do not understand is, if they did sue, how would PG fix "damages"?

    --

    And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)

  10. Well, this is largely the point, but... by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does Project Gutenberg 2 have any affiliation with Project Gutenberg? It appears not. This would appear to be trademark infringement.

    Apart from that, there's nothing wrong with it. People are making money off of public domain works. Good for them. That's one of the benefits of the public domain. People can do this. I'm not quite sure why people should want to buy something that they can get for free, but that's beside the point. If they want it, PG2 is providing the service.

    1. Re:Well, this is largely the point, but... by stiggle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps if Project Gutenberg started their own PDF distribution people would complain less.

      Continue to provide the texts in the plain text formats but also in PDF. That way they can also provide the original layout of the text and the images in the right contexts like some of the old Celtic books (eg. Book of Kells).

    2. Re:Well, this is largely the point, but... by Arker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      About Project Gutenberg 2 Project Gutenberg 2 is a member of the World eBook Library Consortia, an eBook library consortium adds an additional scope to eBook preservation and access. Project Gutenberg 2 is not affiliated with the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and has received no funding, materials, or any other support from the Foundation.

      So that answers your first question.

      Looks to me like it's time for Mr. Hart to talk with a lawyer though. The name is definately 'confusingly similar' to the one he has trademarked, and being used in the same area.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    3. Re:Well, this is largely the point, but... by Hieronymus+Howard · · Score: 4, Informative

      The whois information for projectgutenberg.info (PG2) shows:

      Domain Name: PROJECTGUTENBERG.INFO
      Created On: 09-Nov-2001 05:08:24 UTC
      Last Updated On: 05-Jan-2004 07:01:05 UTC
      Expiration Date: 09-Nov-2008 05:08:24 UTC
      Sponsoring Registrar: Network Solutions, Inc. Registrar (R122-LRMS)
      Status: ACTIVE
      Status: OK
      Registrant ID: C1449260-LRMS
      Registrant Name: Greg Newby
      Registrant Street1: CB 3360 Manning Hall
      Registrant City: Chapel Hill
      Registrant State/Province: NC
      Registrant Postal Code: 27599-3360
      Registrant Country: US
      Registrant Email: gbnewby@ils.unc.edu

      This is the SAME Greg Newby who is the CEO of the original Project Gutenberg. Make of that what you will.

  11. Not affiliated with Project Gutenberg by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The leader says that this raises questions about PG's commitment to providing free books? How so? They aren't in any way affiliated with them (at least according to their site).

    taken from http://www.projectgutenberg.info/
    "Today Project Gutenberg 2, an eBook library consortium adds an additional scope to eBook preservation and access. Project Gutenberg 2 is not affiliated with the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and has received no funding, materials, or any other support from the Foundation. . "

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
    1. Re:Not affiliated with Project Gutenberg by makapuf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try delivering a software project named 'Photoshop bis' or 'Windows XP 2', claim you are not affiliated to Adobe or MS.
      This is a trademark issue and claiming is not the same as being right.

  12. Re:Might as well try for fp by Tx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But is this an issue? Does anyone actually read books on screen?

    I read ebooks almost to the exclusion of paper books as far as entertainment books are concerned - textbooks and manuals are another story. However I do the reading on my iPaq, and there is no Adobe eBook Reader for PocketPC (Abobe eBook != PDF). So I guess I'll have to stick with the free stuff.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  13. This is a good thing by Noksagt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Project Gutenberg 2 is not affiliated with the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and has received no funding, materials, or any other support from the Foundation." So despite the stigma of paying for IP, this project will do little harm to PG, which will still release other public domain works for free.

    By including PG2, they are becoming a first-rate library that will be able to release material that the free service wasn't able to. I'm sure schools and universities will watch for what PDFs will be made available. I'll be watching to see what audiobooks they put out.

    This is certainly no worse than IMDB going commercial. Just because they will charge money for some products doesn't mean they are EVIL. Few people raise hell because Mandrake charges for a boxed set of their distro. The free stuff will still be there, but some value-added services deserve remuneration.

  14. Trademark infringement by curiuz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A company wants to sell ebooks with copyright expired titles? I don't see the problem? They want to call it Project Gutenberg 2/too? That must be such a clear cut tradmark court case? If they'd copycatted a big multibucks company rather than a small non-profit setup this news wouldn't even have reached us before they'd be cluttered with corporate lawyers. Try set up a MS 2 webpage...

  15. Expect more of this in the future by ahodgkinson · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It is surprising that something like this has not happened sooner. You should expect more OS Hijacking to occur as the various open source project begin to achieve a positive brand recognition.

    In this case, some clever business has realized that Project Gutenberg has a good name and is now attempting to make money off it. Thankfully they've had the good sense to put a (rather oblique) disclaimer disassociating themselves from the original Project Gutenberg.

    That said, in my opinion, it's certainly unethical and in some case, may even be illegal to attempt to generate business based on fooling the consumer. Perhaps someone should alert the RMS and the EFF of this new method of co-opting open source.

    --
    ---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.
  16. Is this really a good thing? by LemonYellow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I got the impression from the Project Gutenberg 2 web site that they were in no way connected to Project Gutenberg. So, PG is not "including PG2" unless PG2's claim is bogus. I'm left with the impression that PG2 is leeching the hard work done by PG in generating the raw text for the books, then squatting on a domain name which is clearly designed to imply a (business or reputation) relationship with PG. How is this not illegal, seeming to be a straight case of "passing off"?

  17. Don't smell right by frovingslosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the website: Over 27,000 HTML eBooks Over 60,000 PDF eBooks Sure looks to me like the effort people put into making these books free has been subverted into making more than half of these book more available to paying customers, err I mean "members", than to the generaal public. I too think it stinks.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  18. More BS from the PG 2 people by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Also notable is the fact that these people didn't even try registering www.projectgutenberg2.info -- they got www.projectgutenberg.info.

    This is about as blatant an abuse of the name as I can think of.

    --
    May we never see th
    1. Re:More BS from the PG 2 people by eclectro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I especially like the tag line "Project Guttenberg: The Next Millenium" and the line below it says "providing library services to the world".

      Essentially what they are saying is "you don't want the old project guttenberg, you want the new better one that you have to pay for".

      It's pretty clear to me that their aim is to confuse computer users to start up the adobe ebook program rather than loading it into a plain text reader/editor.

      I especially like the "public access section" as if that is the "official" source for project gutenberg texts that are "free", and "by the way, here are are added search results that are over here that you have to pay for".

      I think the distinction needs to be made clear. There is nothing wrong with selling a public domain text. Anybody can and will do that.

      The problem is that they are essentially plying off the good name of project gettenberg and adding subtle misdirection to get people to buy their services.

      You see, the adobe ebook program can not offer enough advantages for it to stand on its own (and why there aren't adobe ebooks all over the place and why it has fallen on its face) so they have to try and prop it up with lies.

      I would be outraged too. Somebody needs to yank their cord.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  19. Good idea turned asinine by miyako · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the idea they have is a good one. I've downloaded quite a few texts off of Project Gutenburg, and for those of you who haven't, all of their files are simple plaintext files. I've wished for a long while that project gutenburg would release files in HTML or some other format. If the Project Gutenburg won't, then I see nothing wrong with what Project Gutenburg 2 is doing.
    If they would have come up with some better name, then I would have probably considered buying from them, but this is just asinine. It seems to me like they are intentionally trying to use a name very similar to Project Gutenburg so that people who may have heard of Project Gutenburg will be confused and pay them for their services.
    Of course I guess this is what Trademark laws are all about, so hopefully this group will have some lawyers on their arses pretty soon.

    --
    Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
  20. Re:It all boils down to the lisence by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Project Gutenberg texts are all in the public domain and the files are created by volunteers. There is no way to protect anyone's labor or philosophy. The material is free as in free.

    The only "license scheme" is a protection of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you wish to distribute the files and claim them as Project Gutenberg files you must distribute them unmodified, including the license text.

    Since the files are all in the public domain anyone can download them and sell them, either as a computer file, a pdf, or a printed book. Or start a "competing" website with them.

    Many already do this, and if people who have donated their time to the project don't understand that public domain allows this, well, I really don't know what to say.

    They are in the Public Domain, not GPLed, or BSDed or whatever.

    Project Gutenberg continues unabated. Simply go there for all your ASCII format, literary goodness.

    KFG

  21. Their ISP by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Informative

    Their (small) hosting company is apparently Maui Global Communications.

    $ host projectgutenberg.info
    projectgutenberg.info has address 207.175.209.175
    $ whois 207.175.209.175
    [Querying whois.arin.net]
    [whois.arin.net]
    Genuity GNTY-207-175 (NET-207-175-0-0-1)
    207.175.0.0 - 207.175.255.255
    Maui Global Communications GTE-CUST-MGC (NET-207-175-209-0-1)
    207.175.209.0 - 207.175.213.255

    Hell of a weird-ass place to base a server (on an ADSL line on Maui), when the Project Gutenberg 2 guy is registered as being in either North Carolina (billing whois) or Alaska (admin whois). I'll bet they're regretting it in retrospect, given the slashdotting the thing is getting now.

    --
    May we never see th
  22. Something doesn't look right... by rdmiller3 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The appearance of the PG-2 web site looks professional at first... but look again.

    The Acrobat Reader ad/link graphic at the bottom of the main page says,

    Let you(sic!) computer read to you

    So this very likely is not a legitimate graphic from Adobe, Inc. but rather something that this PG-2 site may have made up themselves.

    ...and if they can't even get the spelling right on their web site's front page, doesn't it make you wonder about the quality of their e-books?

    1. Re:Something doesn't look right... by cubic6 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The graphic links to a site that seems to be a mirror of a page on Adobe's site. No indication other than the URL that it's not Adobe.com. I checked Adobe's site, and the software they're distributing is only available as part of Acrobat Reader 6. I smell something fishy...

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    2. Re:Something doesn't look right... by aitsuda · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only does this lead you to a face Adobe website (as the anonymous coward above pointed out) but the links to "adobe" software are, in fact, hosted on the same page... Anyone want to try installing it to see what it does to their PC? Scary

  23. More info here by soramimicake · · Score: 5, Informative
    Half way down this page are more details of this case.

    Especially of interests are the following 2 points:

    - PG trademark owner and PG2 owner are supposedly friends.

    - PG2 tries to claim copyright over the files as well, even though the text themselves are supposed to be in the public domain.

  24. Hypocrites by cubic6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is just one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. If they want to sell access to PDF copies of Project Gutenberg texts, that's fine by me. However, they're quite clearly trying to use Project Gutenberg's good name to sell their material. True, they say that they are unafilliated on the page, but think about it. Their site is www.projectgutenberg.info. Not www.projectgutenberg2.info. The name, Project Gutenberg 2, means a sequel to Project Gutenberg. Most people would see "Project Gutenberg 2" and assume it's an extension of the original Project Gutenberg. They can claim they're not trying to exploit name confusion all they want, but they picked their name with full knowledge that it would be confused with another project with similar goals that already existed.

    --
    Karma: Contrapositive
  25. Project Gutenberg 2 = Michael Hart by mikeymckay · · Score: 5, Informative

    I believe Project Gutenberg 2 is being run by Michael Hart (and others), founder of the original Project Gutenberg and holder of the trademark. At least this is what I am picking up by the mass of emails flying on the gutenberg developers list. So it is affiliated, though in a messy circular sort of way.

  26. Why PDF? by mikeymckay · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have never understood the PDF format. I hate it. Adobe Acrobat Reader defines bloatware - it takes ages to launch, and provides very little added value as far as I am concerned.

    If you are reading an ebook on a desktop or laptop, read it as html or plain text. If you are reading it on PDA (as I have read many gutenberg texts) use zTxt with the Weasel Reader. The reader is great and the compressed text is tiny.

    1. Re:Why PDF? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Informative

      That Weasel Reader thing looks great -- *if* you're using a PDA.

      There are no good open source projects that I know of to let you read ASCII ebooks on a computer screen.

      Constraints I would put on such a project:

      * Must support antialiased text. If I'm going to be reading masses of text, I'd rather not see jaggies.

      * Must support keyboard and mousewheel navigation.

      * Must support some form of good resizing to run in fullscreen mode.

      * Must support display with a proportional font. This is harder than it sounds, since proportional display is usually done without a hard-wrapped source, and the PG texts are all hard-wrapped.

      * The ability to bookmark locations in the text, and zip back to these saved locations.

      * The ability to read gzip- or zip-compressed files. ASCII compresses well, and there's no reason to leave ebooks around uncompressed.

      * A find feature. It would be nice if this had glark-style features, so you can do context searches and the like. (actually, it might make a lot of sense to just be a frontend to glark).

      * (Optional but nice) the ability to feed output into festival or a similar speech synthesis sytem for listening. Open Source speech synth isn't quite to the point where I'd want to use it for ordinary usage (as opposed to use by the disabled), but it's not awful and some folks may like it.

      * (Optional but nice) the ability to remember where you stopped reading.

      I've looked at a *lot* of approaches to getting a nice, readable book. This hack takes in a text file and seems to spit out a pretty good pdf viewable in full-scree-mode in xpdf:


      #!/bin/bash
      # Converts a text file into a nice, computer-readable PDF
      # Usage bookize
      cat "$@"|tr -d "\r"|enscript -B -f Palatino-Roman24 -M Compscreen --word-wrap -p
      "$@".ps
      ps2pdf "$@".ps && rm "$@".ps

      And the required ~/.enscriptrc:


      # Media definitions:
      # name width height llx lly urx ury
      Media: Compscreen 858 644 0 0 858 644

      It is, unfortunately, still not perfect. I've tried writing scripts to feed things in to LaTeX (to enjoy the superior kerning of LaTeX), but I've never been that happy with the results. It's easy to have something that's a metasequence in LaTeX isn't escaped.

      --
      May we never see th
  27. DMCA by femto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the ebooks are encrypted, isn't this a valid reason to possess an ebook encryption cracker? It's primary purpose would not be to crack the encryption on copyrighted works, but to crack the encryption on public domain works.

  28. Profiteering Skum. . , by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Insightful
    should be removed from the playing field.

    The company deliberately chose a name designed to manipulate people. They are the sort where, if they gain any money or power, would think about trying to shut down the original Project or some other such SCO-style nonsense. (And who knows where copyright law will be five years from now; the DMCA is an insanity I certainly thought was too far out-there to come true, but here it is.)

    PG2's character and motivation are clear from the outset and they cannot be expected to change or improve. They deserve to be destroyed.


    -FL

  29. PG2 on shaky ground by Bud · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A couple of things:

    • The Project Gutenberg license requires royalties for commercial use.
    • As others have already pointed out, "Project Gutenberg" is trademarked (at least in the US).

    It's unlikely that anyone would start a business like PG2 without first establishing a licensing plan with PG, unless they are situated far off-shore or have less than three braincells.

    --Bud

  30. Re:Why PDF? And why bogus claims? by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Insightful
    All eBooks are in HTML or PDF format Let your computer read your book to you. What makes PDF eBooks unique is the text to speak capability and a built- in dictionary. Over 60,000 to choose from.
    Text to speak [sic] is trivial to do in a Windows environment. Microsoft gives that away with SAPI. Heck, just as easy to have a little animated character on the screen reading it to you. (Calm down, Clippy doesn't talk. Yet.)

    The glitz of their webpage, the lack of proof-reading (ye gads!), the pushing of a minor feature as if it was sliced-bread, the data mining of Project Gutenberg's hard work suggests that this is a Get Rich Quick cheesy operation.

    Since they were stupid enough to step on Project Gutenberg's good name, hopefully the Flush of Justice will remove this turd quickly.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  31. Re:Might as well try for fp by Tx · · Score: 2, Informative

    Familiar does not have an Adobe eBook Reader. Let me reiterate, Adobe eBook format != PDF. Nor does it support Microsoft Reader or Palm Reader, the formats in which most ebooks are sold. So in the context of ebooks your comments are pretty inane.

    Anyway, I tried Familiar a while back, and it wasn't ready for prime time. It may have improved since, but anti-microsoft zealotry aside, PocketPC is a perfectly decent PDA OS in my opinion.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  32. Uptime 99.98%??? by yudan · · Score: 2, Funny
    In this page it states
    Since our initial launch time our webservers have had a 99.98% up time 24 hours a day, 7 days a week ...
    Posting a story about it on slashdot will definitely change their stated uptime. :-)
  33. Either XML or simply LaTEX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think give all the current solutions plain tex files would be the best.
    It is rather easy to add the LaTEX markup to given books and from there all the necessary plugins and filters are given to generate every fileformat there is under the earth.

    The step from plain text to LaTEX would be a rather small one.

  34. Dr. Greg Newby is the CEO of Project Gutenberg by Hungus · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Why are people raising such a furor over this Newby is teh CEO of Project Gutenberg. There is no relationship because PG is a non profit or
    Donations are made to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (PGLAF), a corporation registered in the US State of Mississippi. PGLAF is approved as a charitable 501(c)(3) organization by the US Internal Revenue Service, and has the Federal Employee Information Number (EIN) 64-6221541.
    so of course there is "no relationship" between them and a group running a for profit enterprise. Do a little bit of research before you start shouting sue ESPECIALLY THE LAWYERS WHO HAVE POSTED Call up pg and tell them their tradmark is being depreciated and while your on the phone with teh ceo you can ask the registrar of pg2 why he is infringing because they are the same person. Different legal entities but the same physical person.
    --
    Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
  35. Doesn't PG allow this though? by seanm666 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From a PG Etext
    DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"

    You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this "Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,

    or:

    [1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the etext or this "small print!" statement. You may however, if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form, including any form resulting from conversion by word processing or hypertext software, but only so long as *EITHER*:

    [*] The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and does *not* contain characters other than those intended by the author of the work, although tilde (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may be used to convey punctuation intended by the author, and additional characters may be used to indicate hypertext links; OR

    [*] The etext may be readily converted by the reader at no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent form by the program that displays the etext (as is the case, for instance, with most word processors);

    OR

    [*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC or other equivalent proprietary form).

    [2] Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this "Small Print!" statement.

    [3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the net profits you derive calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are payable to "Project Gutenberg Association/Carnegie-Mellon University" within the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent periodic) tax return.
    IANAL, but doesn't this allow them to use the name provided they pay the original Project Gutenberg 20% of their profits? Or am I missing something...
  36. This is a fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Look at the Adobe banner: it links to
    www.worldebooklibrary.info/Adobe
    which is a *fake* Adobe website.

    World eBook Library owns both sites.

    Plus the information given below on their ISP in Maui...

    I guess you shouldn't begin to give your money to them...

    Anyone knows how to alert Adobe's legal department? I guess it would help solve GP problem...

    1. Re:This is a fake by De+Lemming · · Score: 5, Informative

      Look at the Adobe banner: it links to http://www.worldebooklibrary.com/Adobe/ (corrected url)
      which is a *fake* Adobe website.

      World eBook Library owns both sites.

      whois:
      www.worldebooklibrary.com = [ 207.175.209.173 ]
      Organization:
      World eBook Library
      John Guagliardo
      PO Box 22687
      Honolulu HI 96823
      US
      [...]

      And their ISP: Maui Global Communications Corp., Hawaii

      Even better: the advertised eBook Reader is a discontinued Adobe product, the functionality is integrated in Adobe Reader now:
      http://www.adobe.com/products/ebookreader/main.htm l

  37. Re:It all boils down to the lisence by sir_cello · · Score: 2, Informative


    Under the newly proposed database laws in the US (which already exist in the EU) the database would be protected as a "sweat of the brow" compilation (rather than needing a "modicum of creativity").

    This would mean that although the texts are in the public domain, people would be prevented from "substantial extraction" of them from the project gutenberg website.

    Whether this would be a good or bad thing makes for a good debate ...

  38. Alternatives to PDF by doktorstop · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a biased supporter of PG, I would really argue that switching to PDF goes against the whole idea of a free, easily-accessible and voluntary-based project. Doing so would cut down any possible motivation for thousands of people to contribute time and work to something that will become proprietary products sold later on to all of us.
    But that is not the point, as I am quite sure this idea will be expressed with different accents in thousands of posts. The points are: 1) yes, it is good that PG is trying to get away from pure text. That is the way to go.
    2) There already exists a mature project called FictionBook. Basically, it is a derivative of the DocBook format, XML-based, but optimized for books instead of documentation (yes, there IS a difference!) Thousands of books (unfortunately most of them in Russian) are already published and readily available on the net. The standart itself has survived so far for at least 2-3 years, so it is proven by time to work. And there are lots of tools to create, modify and archive books, and readers for almost every platform.
    So why reinvent the weel????

    --
    http://www.automatiq.se
  39. I suggest they rename it to by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Funny

    Project Firefox.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  40. name use questionable, but fee is for added value by pwarf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The use of the name is very questionable because it misappropriates the good name of Project Guttenburg and the good will people have towards Project Guttenburg.

    However, the whole point of Project Guttenburg is to make texts already in the public domain readily available. A reasonable person will know that the same works exist for free in plain text format and will only pay for the added value (to them) of having them in a different format.

    Anyone who wants to is still free to make PDF or HTML files of public domain works Project Guttenburg has made into e-texts. Project Guttenburg CANNOT release their books under the GPL because the copyright has already expired on these works. (For the vast majority, if not all of their works. Are there any exceptions?). That's why Project Guttenburg can get them free in the first place.

    Project Guttenburg probably does have a strong trademark case, though.

  41. Numbers don't add up. by Jade+E.+2 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Project Gutenburg has 11,531 titles as of now, in text format.

    Project Gutenburg 2 claims to have 27,000 books available for free in HTML format, and 60,000 books they charge for in PDF/eBook format (Those aren't the same format, and their site confuses them.)

    So, they're obviously ripping off PG's trademarked name (unless they have permission, as a couple people have speculated), but are they really ripping off their content? And even if they are, where are they getting the rest of their books? Presumably, all 27,000 HTML books are duplicated within the 60,000 PDFs, since they claim they pioneered converting from HTML to PDF... But that still leaves 50,000 books that had to come from somewhere other than PG. PG2 is a front for the World eBook Library, which claims to be a consortium of either 45 or 'hundreds' of companies, depending on what page you're on. But their counterfit Adobe page doesn't exactly instill confidence. Then again, with them claiming support from the likes of PG, the Internet Archive, Google, Amazon, Systran, and the LOC, how can they be bad? I mean, on that page they even list the CIA as one of their contributors, and have an outdated mirror of the CIA world factbook. That book is, of course, in the public domain, except that they didn't bother to strip out the official CIA logo, as required by the CIA. Talk about the wrong people to piss off.

    So, this whole thing smells like a major scam, but I still want to know where they got the rest of their content (assuming they actually have it...)

  42. People really didn't read the article did they? by tehanu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think a lot of people are getting the issues confused. What seems to be happening is not an evil corporation hijacking the name of an innocent open source project, it is the head of said project being personally involved in a corporation called PG2 run by a good mate offering the paid options. I have to snigger at all the declarations of evil corporations and telling Michael Hart about this and calling up the lawyer attack dogs, because the article plainly states that he is behind all this. All these statements show is that people really don't read articles on slashdot and have knee-jerk reactions.

    What this is, is if Linus (who I think personally owns the Linux trademark) starting up a company with some good mates, which takes the current Linux source, close-sources it and sells it for a profit with the name Linux 2 and takes the domain name, www.linux.com as his company's front. Not only that said company heavily promotes propietry closed-source formats and programs.

    Basically, has Michael Hart sold out?

    1. There is no trademark issue, because Michael Hart, the founder of PG, who *personally* owns the trademark "Project Gutenberg" is personally involved with the commercial entity called "Project Gutenburg 2" which is run by a good friend of his. The people running PG2 seem to have *permission* from Michael to use the trademark. They are NOT co-opting the name illegally. They have the full permission of the right holder. Calling lawyers to sue in this case is stupid. The issue seems to boil down to a lot of PG people disagreeing with Michael this is an appropriate use of the name, not that they can do anything about it legally. The issue the article raises is whether a single person should have the right to the name and hopes that this incident will lead to a more formal control structure for the project (eg. a committee) which is independent of any single person's control.

    (2) There seems to be some problem with the license. Not sure about this. I think the license on the PG2 website asserts copyright over the contents of the public domain books as well.

    (3) There is the question over whether Michael is personally profiting from PG2. Whether or not you think he should is another issue, but it is one of the issues the original author of the article is pressing Michael to explain.

    (4) In relation to (1). The issue is not whether or not you should be able to repackage and profit from PG's work as this is allowed. The issue is the name PG2 seems to indicate that this is the successor to PG. And also the association with the PG name with closed, propietry formats.

    1. Re:People really didn't read the article did they? by clonebarkins · · Score: 2

      (2) There seems to be some problem with the license. Not sure about this. I think the license on the PG2 website asserts copyright over the contents of the public domain books as well.

      No, the PG license does not assert copyright over the contents of public domain books. The license states that you can do anything you want with the text as long as you remove any mention of PG from the modified version. To rephrase, the license only protects the PG trademark and not any copyright claims on the public domain text (it also talks about how to make donations, volunteer, etc.). There have been discussions within the project about the need for such a long license in every text (it currently weighs in at something like 27k) or whether there should just be mention of the license (which, again, only protects the PG trademark) and a URL of where it can be obtained.

      (3) There is the question over whether Michael is personally profiting from PG2. Whether or not you think he should is another issue, but it is one of the issues the original author of the article is pressing Michael to explain.

      Of course Michael is profiting, though whether financially or not is unknown at this point. Michael wouldn't have made the partnership if he (or PG, and therefore himself by transferrance) didn't profit in some way. He has responded on the PG volunteer mailing list to say that he has not profited.

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

  43. Gutenberg books are fine! by flimnap · · Score: 3, Informative

    Project Gutenberg will accept any format of an ebook, as long as there is also a plain text version. So, many ebooks are available in plain text and HTML, and sometimes other formats (including PDF!!).

    The major producer of PG ebooks, Distributed Proofreaders, ends up producing an illustrated HTML version of almost every book that would benefit from it.

    As long as the public domain PDF ebooks are eventually added to the real Project Gutenberg, and PG2 pays the proper royalties to PG, I don't have a problem with this site.

    Oh wait, I do... I think it's fishy that a friend of Michael Hart (the founder of PG) is awarded one of the domain names owned by the real Project Gutenberg. The "owner" of the domain is Greg Newby (the CEO of the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. He does a fine job, and this isn't his fault ;).

    PROJECTGUTENBERG.INFO Registrant:
    Newby, Greg
    (PROJECTGUTENBERG2-DOM)

  44. Not entirely by Gleef · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "Project Gutenberg 2" seems to me to be run by completely different people, specifically the World eBook Library Consortia.

    The real Project Gutenberg is unchanged. Furthermore, the whole idea of the original project seems (at least to me) to be to take Public Domain works, and make them freely available to as many people as possible so they can do what they want with them. If what you want to do is sell PDF eBooks with these works, that's fine. To quote the notice on the top of Project Gutenberg works:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net


    So the problem here isn't what these people are doing, but the cynical and callous adoption of the "Project Gutenberg" name, which seems designed to cause confusion in the community and the market. I think it might be time for Project Gutenberg to remind the World eBook Library Consortia the nature of trademarks.
    --

    ----
    Open mind, insert foot.
    1. Re:Not entirely by jazman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...by renaming themselves "World eBook Library Consortia 2".

      It would make the point, and is substantially cheaper than suing. And if they sued, PG could simply point out that they did it first and make some use of the words "sauce", "goose" and "gander."

    2. Re:Not entirely by Sandor+at+the+Zoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      The parent post is overrated, IMHO, since there's no background knowledge on the author's part.

      Michael Hart, founder of Project Gutenberg, has given full permission to these guys to use the name. Here's part of a post to the ebook-community mailing list (a yahoo group):

      PGII only charges for certain files they modified or created, and is paying PG the same royalty as we require from anyone.

      and

      Anyone who calls for such drastic action immediately just doesn't want to see how things will work, they want to force the worst assumption on us all. Project Gutenberg has always been open to experimentation. And we also have always had the fine print that has allowed for the production of "Project Gutenberg CDs" DVDs, etc., all by anyone who wanted to give it a try.

      In my humble opinion, this dilutes the Project Gutenberg name and idea, but it's Hart's to do with as he sees fit.

    3. Re:Not entirely by bumski · · Score: 3, Interesting
      In my humble opinion, this dilutes the Project Gutenberg name and idea, but it's Hart's to do with as he sees fit.
      What a shame, too. There ought to be a low-cost mechanism by which collaborators could be invested with some measure of formal ownership in projects like Gutenberg and CDDB so that their putative owners can't take advantage of the work of scores of volunteers and sell out in the end. Gutenberg shouldn't be owned by Hart, but rather by everyone who has contributed over the years.
  45. Format by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful
    A number of years ago (when I was reading PG texts extensively) an idea hit me for a format that would suite PG very well. The idea is to have a second meta data file that describes the .txt file. Such a beast may already exist, but here are a few points regarding such a format:
    • The system would accompany completely original, unaltered PG txts.
    • The meta data file would contain a checksum of the txt file, so the reader software would know if the file has been altered or mismatched.
    • The meta data would include bibliographic data.
    • The meta data would contain actual text formatting (for example, "turn on italics at character 12,345").
    • The couplets (meta data + txt) could then be run through converters to produce pdf or html, or be used in readers that understand the format natively.

    Anyway my idea was to simply enhance the existing system (plain text), not replace it. Obviously this would require the creation of a WYSIWYG editor, but the formatting involved would be fairly basic and could be extended as needed. A library this extensive would warrant a format custom designed for it, as opposed to trying to drive a square peg into a round hole using existing formats (pdf, html, etc, which would introduce a whole new set of compromises).

    Dan East
    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Format by JBMcB · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sounds like a job for (Dun dun daaa) Docbook!

      I've been looking around for a docbook reader/editor for a while. OpenOffice.org has some basic docbook import/export support, and there are some commercial apps that can do docbook, but most are really expensive (FrameMaker, XMLSpy I think.)

      If we can get a really nice, friendly docbook editor/converter, ideally that doesn't use TeX (Arcane and HUGE)

      A reader could be a modified browser, ideally one that would let you apply styles to your taste, like, oh, mosaic could do :)

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  46. Re:project for free distribution of written knowle by clonebarkins · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is sad to see that projects lose their initial zeal and ideology.

    The project has not lost its zeal and ideology. Project Gutenberg is alive and kicking, and even revolting to some extent against Michael's unilateral decision to partner with the World Ebook Library through the device of projectgutenberg.info (aka Project Gutenberg II). As an active volunteer of PG and DP, I have seen the discussions over the past few days, and the zeal has increased if anything. People are still holding true to the ideals of PG, even if its founder has made a bad decision.

    Some open source projects, such as Linux, have understood that, and were GPL'ed. This safegards any commercialism that would destroy it's very foundation.

    Project Gutenberg is not an "open source project." It is a project to get public domain texts into electronic formats and distribute them to whoever wants them--including commercial enterprises. Linux and others are projects that work in copyrighted materials. Verbum Vanum requires specific licensing, which is very much against PG philosophy (yes, PG does have some copyrighted texts, but it does not require authors to give up any rights as the OLPA does, only to provide PG non-exclusive electronic distribution rights).

    Yes, PG puts a license on every one of its texts. But it is the only license I know of that says you can remove the license altogether and redistribute however you desire. That is a benefit, not a detriment.

    --

    "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

  47. Michael Hart == good by cyberon22 · · Score: 2

    Thanks for the clear review.

    What amazes me is how cynical people here are. Project Gutenberg owes everything to Michael Hart, and so you think that admirers of the original would be supportive of the new venture.

    Thanks Michael.

  48. Who cares? I'm waiting for... by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...the Steve Guttenberg project. Can you imagine it? All of his works, from the seminal "Police Academy" series to the touching "Cocoon", all available for free. Savor the acting in "Diner", then laugh your ass off at the zany antics in "Short Circuit". Oh, whose heart didn't go out to "Number 5" in that masterwork?

    Text is dead; long live video. Free Steve's work now!

  49. Rich vs plain by gidds · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I can see both sides of this argument.

    On the one hand, plain 7-bit ASCII text is the single most compatible format; just about any platform and app can handle it in some way or other. And it's likely to last longer than almost any other format. So as Gutenberg says, it's the most accessible format and the most future-proof.

    But on the other, it's very thin. It has no structure: nothing to separate chapters, scenes, volumes, &c. It has no metadata: nothing to identify authors, translators, editions, dates, even titles, in a machine-readable manner. And it has no way to represent accented characters, directional quotes, and other characters that would greatly improve the typography.

    The compelling argument for me, though, is that although you could automatically convert from a standardised rich format to plain text, it's impossible to convert the other way around without lots of manual work. If Gutenberg had chosen a rich format, even a very simple one, to start with, then all the benefits of plain text would come with that almost for free -- a simple open-sourced program would let people convert from the one to the other, and they could even provide both versions of texts on their web site.

    FWIW, for my own reading I keep files in plain text but formatted in a particular manner: in Windows Latin-1, with accents and typography; with Palm-style bookmarks; and with conventions for chapter/scene/volume breaks, bold/italics, and metadata. It's a pain getting them there, but means they're ideal for reading on my palmtop, and also capable of being up-converted if the need arises.

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    1. Re:Rich vs plain by bbc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just to give you folks some info about what's going on at PG.

      First of all, PG is not against any other formats than plain vanilla text. However, because of the accessibility and future-proofness of that format, every text that PG will ever produce will also be published as plain vanilla text. It is the one format we will always produce, of many.

      XML formats are being discussed. The idea is that we will produce XML files that will be used as storage format, from which at the very least the plain vanilla texts will be produced, and further more any format we care to support (most likely at least HTML and PDF).

      The problem with these technologies is that they require volunteers to implement them.

      Currently the biggest producer of ebooks for PG is Distributed Proofreaders (DP). This is a web-based, distributed application for the correction and formatting of ebooks. DP has a long list of guidelines of the sort of information that needs to be retained. At the moment, we keep more information than is required by PG, and a lot of this extra information runs the risk of being discarded. One of the solutions to this problem that volunteers have devised is producing their own HTML and XML etexts. Please read our newsletter article The Illustrated Masterpieces of Project Gutenberg to see some recent examples.

      The Distributed Proofreaders would love to see a solution for the conservation problem. We want our ebooks to look good. It's the natural effect of putting ten thousand nit-pickers in the same room.

      --Branko Collin

  50. Re:name use questionable, but fee is for added val by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gutenberg.

    one t.

    Guttenberg sounds like the name of a society for fishers or hunters. :)

    (Your local spelling correction fairy has struck)

  51. You can still get free books on your PDA. by Jaywalk · · Score: 2, Informative
    You don't need to pay someone to get free books in PDA format. Get the plain text from Gutenberg or elsewhere, then download a copy of the program DropBook. Run the plain text through DropBook and you'll have the book on your PDA. If you want to get fancy, you can use a text editor to mark up the book in the Palm Markup Language. That will get you stuff like chapter headings and a table of contents.

    I did this just the other day and now I have a copy of the manual for MySQL readable on my PDA complete with a table of contents. Sweet.

    --
    ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
  52. PG vs PG2? by Almost-Retired · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think these people who intend to make money from the good name of Project Gutenburg should be drawn and quartered. Thats inexcusable.

    I hate to see the real project folks have to waste money on attornies to kick these jerks where it hurts, but I don't see a real, usable, alternative to doing just that.

    Maybe its time we found a place to submit donations if the real PG site doesn't have such a facility available. I don't have very deep pockets as I'm on SS as I approach my 70th birthday, but surely there are folks out there with deeper pockets than mine, and equally committed to shooting back instead of being mugged by the likes of these low lifes.

    We need the literary equivalent of a CWP, and a posse comitatus. To paraphrase Willy Nelson & friends, "whiskey for my men, and beer for our horses" when the job is done seems like a hell of a good idea.

    Cheers, Gene

  53. Commercial was always in the cards by Googol · · Score: 3, Insightful


    I spent a day, 11 years ago, discussing with Michael Hart his plans, at a conference I organized and also driving him from Chicago to Urbana-Champaign where he lived at the time. At the time, I was running a similar project aiming at creating freely distributable e-books.

    You must remember that PG started before the Free Software movement and Open Source movements changed our ideas of commercial distribution.

    Today, we take for granted that work that is under GPL or other open licensing will be distributed freely--not necessarily free as in beer, but free as in freedom.

    Many people in the late 80s and early 90s were willing to contribute for free, but a number of variants were common. One of the most common was:

    Free beer yes, free as in freedom no. There were any number of dual license schemes with various restrictions for commercial use. Free ASCII beer, but not Public Domain, not free as in freedom.

    RMS and Linus created a revolution by *convincing* large numbers of persons that allowing others to "commercially exploit" their work was in fact a net gain for the community, because it increased the mobility (sharing) of software. What seems dogmatic doctrine today was Enlightenment for many in 1992-1993.

    Michael Hart came out of the *DOS* tradition, not the *UNIX* tradition. Freeware binaries with enhanced versions for commercial use.

    Read the PG headers. They are NOT public domain, but the text is licensed for non-commercial use. More specifically, this was not refined in the early versions of the header, which allow the header to be removed so the work would truely be public domain (if proven in court).

    Michael Hart's concern was that putting work in the PD, even might leave HIM *liable* to copyright infringement charges, even if he made a innocent mistake. PG has a copyright vetting process and a license for this reason. Recent and future events may well prove him wise in that regard.

    In any event, he is well aware that commercial use brings possible liability to a different level.

    I would suggest, in looking at any of the views of Richard Stallman, Michael Hart, Linus Torvalds, Bruce Perens, Eric Raymond, or any other leader of the "free/open" movements, as well as innovators like Bill Gates (inventor of the "binary application") that you consider the totality of legal, social, and economic issues they work with.

    Perhaps there is no single "right way". The PG way is maximum utility but not necessarily freedom for the non-paying masses, legal protection for the distributors, and a definite non-commodity commercial prospect.

    Both the GPL and the PG license make a balance of rights, profits, and efficient distribution. The key is to learn that one must continually revisit the social and philosophical model underpinning any distribution method--Stallman very rightly guides us to the philosophical and social issues here.

  54. Freely Distributable != Public Domain by Googol · · Score: 3, Informative


    Read the headers please.

    You get a license to distribute the works under very specific terms.

    Public Domain is impossible to implement in practice without some legal mechanism, since the Berne convention makes "copyrighted" the default.

    You can get "effectively in the Public Domain" if you give a relaxed license for your necessarily copyrighted work. *All* computer files whatsover are copyrighted implicitly (we think) by their creators, if not by upstream "IP rights".

    PG -- freely redistributable for non-commercial use -- doesn't even come close.

    Their purpose is free-as-in-beer literature for the masses, not free-as-in-freedom for computer files. Hence, a commercial PG2 has no conflict with PG as to purpose.

  55. ...why would this be good? by RevAaron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Err... I mean, why would having PG books in Adobe eBook format be a good thing? Adobe eBook files are a hassle, and with no reader for any PDAs, be it a Palm OS, WinCE or Linux device, I can't see any advantage. I prefer txt, html or rtf for my ebooks, formats I can read on any PDA and any computer. And if it has to be something proprietary, at least PDB files for MobiPocket or Palm Reader allow me to read the files on PocketPC, WinCE or Palm OS. For WinCE or Linux though, I have been buying my books in .LIT, which can be converted to HTML. Yes, I actually *buy* the book, but I need some way to read it.

    But Adobe eBook... bleh. The only place to read that is on a desktop/laptop OS. And who the hell reads books that way? Not I!

    And for those who are out of the know- yes, every modernish PDA platform out now can read PDFs. But Adobe eBook files are *not* just simple PDF files, but something different. But even if the ebooks came in regular Adobe PDF format, it'd still suck- compare using something like Adobe Reader or Picsel Viewer for Palm OS or PocketPC or even worse, qpdf2 for the Zaurus with a nice app *designed* for reading ebooks- Palm Reader, JustReader+ or uBook.

    --

    Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  56. Thank you by Gleef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was unaware at the time of writing that they were using the Trademark with permission . Generally, if you are using someone else's trademark with permission, among other things you identify whose trademark it is as part of the message, something like "Project Gutenberg is a trademark of Michael Hart".

    Since I saw no such notice on the Project Gutenberg 2 Website, I assumed they were in violation of the trademark.

    Assuming they are legitimately using the trademark, this is a really disappointing usage. They give no credit to the work of the volunteers of Project Gutenberg, and they make their site sound like they are the new, improved replacement for the project. This is confusing to many people, and seriously dilutes the trademark, two things that licensing is supposed to minimize. *sigh*

    --

    ----
    Open mind, insert foot.