MIT Press Book On Open Source Now Free

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT Press Book On Open Source Now Free

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday March 20, 2007 @05:34AM from the as-in-beer dept.

eaglemoon writes "MIT Press has released its book Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software as a free PDF download. The book is a collection of research essays covering topics such as open source motivation, economics, business models, software development process and tools, law, and community. Sort of like 'Open Sources' from academics. David Parnas, Larry Lessig, Eric von Hippel, and Clay Shirky are among the contributors."

51 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Free? by omeomi · 2007-03-20 05:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

So, is anybody going to argue that it's not "free" because you can't edit and redistribute it yourself?

--
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
1. Re:Free? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-20 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  So, is anybody going to argue that it's not "free" because you can't edit and redistribute it yourself?
  
  Define free.
2. Re:Free? by omeomi · 2007-03-20 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Define free.
  
  http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=226941&cid=183 92001
  
  --
  ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
3. Re:Free? by choongiri · 2007-03-20 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yes:
  
  © 2005 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  
  All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher.
4. Re:Free? by omeomi · 2007-03-20 05:57 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Oh goody! I, for one, can't wait until people start arguing that free beer isn't free, because you can't open, modify, and then redistribute it legally. That will make the whole "free as in beer" argument so much more exciting.
  
  --
  ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
5. Re:Free? by webword · 2007-03-20 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  What are the rights on this? I scanned the page but did not see...
  
  --
  How to Download YouTube Videos
6. Re:Free? by Silver+Sloth · 2007-03-20 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  You can open, modify, and redistribute free beer, but it's called something else by then and doesn't taste so good.
  
  --
  init 11 - for when you need that edge.
7. Re:Free? by morgan_greywolf · 2007-03-20 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  But, you actually can open, modify and redistribute free beer legally if you're a restaurant with a beer and wine license, provided you pour it in a glass first and your redistribution area doesn't extend beyond the property line.
  
  --
  My blog
8. Re:Free? by choongiri · 2007-03-20 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  There's a copyright statement in the PDF itself, see above.
9. Re:Free? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-20 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  "free" does not mean also "open".
  
  free means just that you can take it without having requrements (money or else)
  open means you can take it and modify it.
  
  so it's right, it's free
10. Re:Free? by omeomi · 2007-03-20 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  provided you pour it in a glass first and your redistribution area doesn't extend beyond the property line.
  
  Well, that doesn't sound very free, then, does it?
  
  --
  ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
11. Re:Free? by veganboyjosh · 2007-03-20 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that doesn't sound very free, then, does it?
  free as in speech?
12. Re:Free? by AeroIllini · 2007-03-20 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Why would this not be free? PDF is a fully open, documented standard; Adobe licenses their patents on it royalty-free.
  
  There's no reason to be stuck with Adobe Acrobat Reader(tm). Go get a real PDF editor and modify away! Dump the whole thing to text or LaTeX if you want.
  
  --
  For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
13. Re:Free? by omeomi · 2007-03-20 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Why would this not be free? PDF is a fully open, documented standard; Adobe licenses their patents on it royalty-free.
  
  I think you're confusing the medium and the message. The openness of the PDF standard (the medium) has nothing to do with the openness of the content (the message).
  
  --
  ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
14. Re:Free? by AeroIllini · 2007-03-20 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're confusing the medium and the message. Not really, I was just being an ass.
  
  This is no different than music... someone owns the copyright and you're not allowed to modify or redistribute without permission, even if the format is open and Free (ogg/flac/etc.). You're allowed to remix or cite under Fair Use, but not distribute.
  
  Just because the book discusses open source doesn't mean the book IS open source.
  
  --
  For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
15. Re:Free? by bcrowell · 2007-03-20 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  >>So, is anybody going to argue that it's not "free" because you can't edit and redistribute it yourself?
  
  >Define free.
  
  Free (as in freedom) would mean you can edit and redistribute it yourself.
  
  I maintain a catalog of books that are free as in beer, or free as in speech. (See my sig.) Currently I have 111 books in the catalog that are under free-as-in-speech licenses such as the GFDL or CC-BY-SA. Not many of those books are actually about free information, but a few are (e.g., Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software, by Sam Williams). There are another 1022 books in the catalog that are free as in beer, but not free as in speech.
  
  The beer/speech definition has very little to do with the format of the book. Of the 111 free-as-in-speech books, quite a few are distributed only in pdf format, which may make it a hassle to use their contents in creative ways to make derived works, but it doesn't make it illegal. It would be illegal to do so with the 1022 free-as-in-beer books. In the case of the books I've written, I distribute them in three different formats (pdf, html, latex); this is analogous to distributing a program both in binary and source form. (The GFDL does have a clause that says you can't modify and redistribute the licensed work in an "opaque" format, without making it available in a "transparent" format as well. The CC-BY-SA license has no such restriction.)
  
  It may seem ungrateful to complain that the authors of this book haven't made it available under a copyleft license, but what they're doing does seem to contradict the ideology the book is trying to push. For instance, if someone wants to include a chapter in a course pack for a university course, they can't legally do that without claiming fair use (and most bookstores these days are very suspicious of that kind of free use claim by instructors). It's true that licenses like GFDL and CC-BY-SA, which are modeled after the GPL, may not be completely appropriate for a work that expresses opinions, but then the solution would be to use something like CC-BY-ND. Likewise, they could set the noncommercial (NC) bit, if MIT Press is scared of losing money because somebody else comes out with an edition. (But again, that would be kind of ironic, since the whole philosophy of the open source movement, which is being pushed by the book, is to renounce of the traditional monopoly on publishing rights granted by copyright law.)
  
  --
  Find free books.
16. Re:Free? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-21 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  I think that means it's "free as in beer" but not "open".
Direct link to pdf by LotsOfPhil · 2007-03-20 05:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Direct link to pdf

--
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
1. Re:Direct link to pdf by AeroIllini · 2007-03-20 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  PDF warning!
  
  --
  For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
2. Re:Direct link to pdf by SpaceLifeForm · 2007-03-20 08:14 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I think you need more caffeine.
  
  --
  You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
License information by ksd1337 · 2007-03-20 05:42 · Score: 1

What is the license used to distribute the book? Does it even have a license?
1. Re:License information by cultrhetor · 2007-03-20 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  MIT, as the owner of the copyright, has decided to distribute the book for NO COST. This does not mean that you can redistribute it, as you do not own the copyright. If you do, you are subject to copyright infringement as your redistribution has infringed on MIT's sole right to decide what to do with the damn thing: they might want to make it "for profit" once again and remove the "free download."
  
  --
  "Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
Suggestion by truthsearch · 2007-03-20 05:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

I haven't checked it out yet, but this sounds like the sort of thing that should handed around to managers at Windows-only shops. I spent 10 years in development teams that only worked on Windows (and Microsoft development tools) and management had no comprehension of what open source was really about. They ignored it because they didn't understand it. I wish I had something like this back then.

--
Developers: We can use your help.
1. Re:Suggestion by malevolentjelly · 2007-03-20 05:51 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  ...Yeah, because the Ivory Tower has a lot to teach managers and business leaders about what's profitable and what works. :P
2. Re:Suggestion by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-20 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  Why do people think that Windows is the antithesis of Open Source? Almost all Open Source software runs under Windows rather well. If fact, large OSS packages like Mozilla, Apache and OpenOffice all run under Windows. Many OSS programmers develop their software on Windows. Microsoft also releases open source software under their own open source license. I would say that Microsoft is one of the largest producers of open source software in fact!
3. Re:Suggestion by fotbr · 2007-03-20 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Because most people have the incorrect assumption that Open Source == Linux. Including fanboys of Open Source, Linux, and Microsoft. Also, Microsoft has a history of their spokespeople declaring war on "Open Source" when they mean "Linux".
4. Re:Suggestion by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · 2007-03-20 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  They ignored it because they didn't understand it.
  And speaking as an ex-manager at a Windows only shop that made heavy use of Python, Perl and cygwin, you clearly don't understand it either.
  
  --
  Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
5. Re:Suggestion by truthsearch · 2007-03-20 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't know that Python, Perl, and cygwin aren't Microsoft development tools (or didn't bother to read that part of my post), then there's really nothing for you to say at all.
  
  --
  Developers: We can use your help.
not to nitpick but... by east+coast · 2007-03-20 05:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

MIT has made a ton of stuff free to the unwashed masses. Is this a big deal simply because it involves open source or is this a really noteworthy book like "Design Patterns" or "Code Complete"?

--
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
1. Re:not to nitpick but... by garcia · 2007-03-20 06:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  IMHO, it's certainly not nearly important as them offering OpenCourseWare to the masses for free.
2. Re:not to nitpick but... by morgret · 2007-03-20 06:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  MIT isn't the only one offering their courses to the masses for free. Many institutions, both K12 and higher ed, have their courses online now. Of those, many have the Creative Commons licenses that can allow for remixing the content. http://www.oercommons.org/oer/oer-providers has everything from Free High School Science Texts from South Africa to webcasts from UC Berkeley to MIT's OpenCourseWare, as well as dozens of other sources.
3. Re:not to nitpick but... by garcia · 2007-03-20 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  That wasn't my point but thanks for the link.
4. Re:not to nitpick but... by MrCopilot · 2007-03-20 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Only one good way to find out. Read it.
  
  --
  OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
5. Re:not to nitpick but... by Hognoxious · 2007-03-20 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  I printed out a few chapters for the commute home[1], but I left them at work. But from the bits I quickly scanned, it looks more like a collection of essays - background reading, you could say.
  
  [1] Don't panic, I take the train.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
6. Re:not to nitpick but... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-20 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  ... or is this a really noteworthy book like "Design Patterns" or "Code Complete"?
  
  There it is again.
  
  Another reference to "Code Complete" that doesn't end with: "A truly awful book that was obviously produces on the doller per page model"
  
  Did you all read the same book I did? (Actually, I never made it through to the end. Is there some secret at the end like: "Re-read the book, ignoring every other word and then you will get the good stuff?")
  
  I really want to know, because there seem to be an awful lot of folks out there who didn't realize the enormous suckitude of that book.
7. Re:not to nitpick but... by Hognoxious · 2007-03-20 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  There are an awful lot more who can spell "dollar" properly. But thanks for playing.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
8. Re:not to nitpick but... by Nazlfrag · 2007-03-20 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  That is incredibly amazing. The EE/CS part seems particularly enjoyable. Well, I'm off to study some photonics. And then tell everyone I studied at MIT!
No License by John+Hasler · 2007-03-20 06:21 · Score: 1

There is no license. It is gratis, but not libre.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
RFTB? by deviceb · 2007-03-20 06:35 · Score: 1

anybody read this, i have no time to read a whole book right now

--
Kill your TV
1. Re:RFTB? by Patrik_AKA_RedX · 2007-03-20 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  Since you don't have time to read it:
  The butler did it and miss Green knew it but tried to frame Mr Rogers, who had a secret relation with Mr Green. Inspector McMacsome figured it out, because Mr Rogers doesn't smoke and the butler used lipstick. The horse in the closet was a death give away, who else but the butler would use a gattling gun to murder Mr Rich? Ofcourse in the end it gets clear that Mr Rich was involved with bike smuggle operations and tree abuse and the butler was an undercover secret Ecopolice agent.
MIT and Openness by wile_e_wonka · 2007-03-20 07:15 · Score: 4, Informative

MIT publishes a magazine called Technology Review, which I have been a reader of for some time now. There came a time a few years back when they required a subscription to view online material, much like Scientific American and many other magazines do. This was after the school had begun their OpenCourseWare program, and I thought it seemed contrary to where the school was headed. I emailed the magazine and told them essentially that. I have no idea if my email played a part (I'm sure it was one of many similar emails--Technology Review really is a great magazine (one I'd be willing to pay for if I wasn't so darn poor...I'm a student)). But anyway, within a few days, the content was all freely accessable again.
1. Re:MIT and Openness by tsalaroth · 2007-03-20 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  You weren't the only person who sent them an email, I know myself and at least one other colleague did. Though, I'm sure numbers always help. :)
2. Re:MIT and Openness by wile_e_wonka · 2007-03-20 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'm hoping someone on the Technology Review staff will respond to my comment. Maybe people like us made a difference, or maybe just very few people subscribed and they make more money as an ad-supported magazine (meaning it was all about "the benjamins" and our emails served little purpose).
3. Re:MIT and Openness by Acer500 · 2007-03-21 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks! I always liked Technology Review since my university had a subscription (which they didn't renew, sadly), and when I tried to access it online I found out I couldn't...
  
  I had no idea it had switched to open access, good news that. (BTW, I'd like to subscribe but I'm probably even poorer than you... 3rd world student :) )
  
  --
  There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
This is an excellent book... by cursorx · 2007-03-20 07:44 · Score: 3, Informative

I bought this a while back when it was fresh. Some of the articles are very, very good. But a considerable part of the content was already free back then, only not as a part of the book (i.e. the authors themselves had made some of the articles freely available before publication).
Re:tu36irl by ksd1337 · 2007-03-20 10:24 · Score: 1

This is a troll, you idiots. Wow, it has been a long time since I have seen a goatse link.
Best Course at MIT... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-20 12:27 · Score: 0

The best course at MIT is the one called "How to make millions by getting idiots to do your work for you... for free!!!"

I hear some of the class alumni have gone on to successful careers at AOL's Netscape, Novell's SUSE, and IBM (just about anything). When your labor costs are close to nothing and your support product support either non-existant or you charge heavily for it... your profit is near infinite!
von Hippel's other books by Anonymous Coward · 2007-03-21 07:12 · Score: 0

Prof. von Hippel wrote a couple other books. Both of which are available for "free as in beer" downloads under a CC Attribution-no Commercial-no Derivs licence. "Sources of Innovation" and "Democratizing Innovation" are both really good reads. You can download PDFs at von Hippel's site at http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books.htm.