The license for the content
Alexander Gladysh
Lets discuss the license.
https://github.com/lua-cookbook/lua-cookbook/wiki/The-license
Currently it is CC-BY-NC-SA, as ProGit has.
Should we change it to more MIT-like CC-BY?
Alexander.
Matthew Frazier
> https://github.com/lua-cookbook/lua-cookbook/wiki/The-license
>
> Currently it is CC-BY-NC-SA, as ProGit has.
>
> Should we change it to more MIT-like CC-BY?
probably need everyone to sign a CLA if this is ever to be published
just to keep our ducks in a row - kinda like they did for Gems. We
should probably contact someone who's done this before (maybe the Pro
Git or Apress people) and see what kind of legal issues would be
involved with publication, especially considering that we have authors
in different countries.
-- Matthew "LeafStorm" Frazier
Alexander Gladysh
OK, I see.
Perhaps I should rephrase the question then:
Would someone refuse to contribute if we would use the CC-BY license?
Thank you,
Alexander.
Matthew Frazier
> Would someone refuse to contribute if we would use the CC-BY license?
>
> Thank you,
> Alexander.
-- Matthew "LeafStorm" Frazier
Chris Babcock
The confusing thing is that it's not consistently clear whether any distinction is being made between individual contributions and the compilation. If print publishing is a goal then the contributors need to give up commercial rights and the editing team needs to reserve them. Without that distinction, you can still do print on demand or similar services, but (as a practical outcome of the legal matter) it will never be in bookstores or libraries.
So we need to move away from describing copyright in the abstract and move towards a discussion in the context of outcomes. If print publishing is not an issue then commercial rights don't have to be either. If the discussion is going to kill momentum then start restrictive - CLA for contributors and the NC clause on the product - and loosen the terms if it's needed to attract contributors.
Signoff
Chris
--
Top posted on my Android phone
On Jan 6, 2011 11:35 AM, "Alexander Gladysh" <agla...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 14:16, Matthew Frazier <leafst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 4:57 am, ...
Alexander Gladysh
> The confusing thing is that it's not consistently clear whether any
> distinction is being made between individual contributions and the
> compilation. If print publishing is a goal then the contributors need to
> give up commercial rights and the editing team needs to reserve them.
> Without that distinction, you can still do print on demand or similar
> services, but (as a practical outcome of the legal matter) it will never be
> in bookstores or libraries.
> So we need to move away from describing copyright in the abstract and move
> towards a discussion in the context of outcomes. If print publishing is not
> an issue then commercial rights don't have to be either. If the discussion
> is going to kill momentum then start restrictive - CLA for contributors and
> the NC clause on the product - and loosen the terms if it's needed to
> attract contributors.
Well, do you have a handy CLA text?
My current feeling is that we should switch to CC-BY. If suddenly
someone would want to publish the book commercially and he would not
be able to do this with these (quite open) licenses, well, we always
can contact all contributors (as determined by the commit history) and
ask them for a signature.
Alexander.
Alexander Gladysh
> https://github.com/lua-cookbook/lua-cookbook/wiki/The-license
I changed the license to CC-BY.
Please read this
https://github.com/lua-cookbook/lua-cookbook/wiki/the-license
and this
https://github.com/lua-cookbook/lua-cookbook/blob/master/COPYRIGHT
and voice any objections until it is too late.
Alexander.
Steve Litt
Hi Alexander,
My one objection, and I'm sorry I didn't notice this earlier, is the cc-by
contains no disclaimer of warranty. As an author I can tell you I put a
disclaimer of warranty on the copyright page of every book I write, and on
many Troubleshooters.Com pages. Failure to disclaim warranty in this day and
age is asking for trouble.
Here's the disclaimer of warranty from my book "Thriving in Tough Times"
The author and publisher have used their best efforts in preparing this book,
and believe its factual representations to be accurate and its expressed
opinions reasonable. However, the author and publisher make no representation
or warranties with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this
book. The author and publisher disclaim all responsibility, liability, and/or
damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or
other damages, resulting from the use of this book. This book shall be used
entirely at the risk of the reader.
SteveT
Steve Litt
Recession Relief Package
http://www.recession-relief.US
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stevelitt
Alexander Gladysh
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 20:44, Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
> On Friday 07 January 2011 02:10:42 Alexander Gladysh wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 09:57, Alexander Gladysh <agla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My one objection, and I'm sorry I didn't notice this earlier, is the cc-by
> contains no disclaimer of warranty. As an author I can tell you I put a
> disclaimer of warranty on the copyright page of every book I write, and on
> many Troubleshooters.Com pages. Failure to disclaim warranty in this day and
> age is asking for trouble.
Um. But what about section 5 here?
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
If that is not enough, can we reuse your wording (replacing "author
and publisher" with "authors")?
Thank you!
Alexander.
Steve Litt
Hi Alexander.
I didn't see that page, so thanks for pointing it out. It *almost* cures my
concerns. However, I'm not a big fan of the last sentence in the first
disclaimer paragraph:
"SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH
EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU."
If the law really don't allow it, then the sentence is moot and unnecessary.
And the sentence seems to imply that my intent is to exclude warranty only in
jurisdictions allowing it. However, my real intent is to disallow it
everywhere. If the law says otherwise, it's over my objections. I'd really
prefer not to be sued for contributing my time without payment :-;
I found in the old days a lot of licenses had this "may not apply to you"
clause, but as time goes on more and more leave it out, which I think is wise.
Thanks
SteveT
>
> Thank you!
> Alexander.
>
--
Alexander Gladysh
> On Friday 07 January 2011 12:50:07 Alexander Gladysh wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 20:44, Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday 07 January 2011 02:10:42 Alexander Gladysh wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 09:57, Alexander Gladysh <agla...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> > My one objection, and I'm sorry I didn't notice this earlier, is the
>> > cc-by contains no disclaimer of warranty. As an author I can tell you I
>> > put a disclaimer of warranty on the copyright page of every book I write,
>> > and on many Troubleshooters.Com pages. Failure to disclaim warranty in
>> > this day and age is asking for trouble.
>> Um. But what about section 5 here?
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
>> If that is not enough, can we reuse your wording (replacing "author
>> and publisher" with "authors")?
> I didn't see that page, so thanks for pointing it out. It *almost* cures my
> concerns. However, I'm not a big fan of the last sentence in the first
> disclaimer paragraph:
> "SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH
> EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU."
> If the law really don't allow it, then the sentence is moot and unnecessary.
> And the sentence seems to imply that my intent is to exclude warranty only in
> jurisdictions allowing it. However, my real intent is to disallow it
> everywhere. If the law says otherwise, it's over my objections. I'd really
> prefer not to be sued for contributing my time without payment :-;
> I found in the old days a lot of licenses had this "may not apply to you"
> clause, but as time goes on more and more leave it out, which I think is wise.
IANAL, but, as I understand, this sentence is to control whether whole
license becomes invalid when it conflicts with the local law (which we
certainly do not want), or this one specific part about the disclaimer
of warranty.
Alexander.
Steve Litt
The way that's usually done is a sentence saying if one part is invalid, the
rest remains. I can dig it up from a book contract.
In fact, it's just possible I'd prefer the whole thing be invalid if there's
no protection from lawsuit, because that would mean they can't have used it in
the first place :-)
The MIT, BSD and GPLV2 licenses don't have the "if local law" sentence. The
GPLv3 has it, but then goes on to give the author maximum protection like
this:
======================================
17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.
If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided
above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms,
reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates
an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the
Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a
copy of the Program in return for a fee.
======================================
The disclaimer language becomes important because, as a group of authors of a
work that by license can be modified over and over again by anyone, no one of
us has control over its content, so being careful isn't enough.
SteveT
Alexander Gladysh
> On Saturday 08 January 2011 12:30:36 Alexander Gladysh wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 19:48, Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
>> IANAL, but, as I understand, this sentence is to control whether whole
>> license becomes invalid when it conflicts with the local law (which we
>> certainly do not want), or this one specific part about the disclaimer
>> of warranty.
> The way that's usually done is a sentence saying if one part is invalid, the
> rest remains. I can dig it up from a book contract.
> In fact, it's just possible I'd prefer the whole thing be invalid if there's
> no protection from lawsuit, because that would mean they can't have used it in
> the first place :-)
In my understanding, at least here in Russia, if the whole license
license is deemed null and void as conflicting with law, then
"default" rules, set by law, apply. And they usually protect customer.
Anyway, do you have a constructive suggestion?
I don't think that we should use a custom-tailored license — we lack
lawyer resource do do that.
OTOH, if that will make you feel better, I think that we may add an extra
disclaimer to the COPYRIGHT file. If you provide the wording and
others will agree with it.
Alexander.
Yuri Takhteyev
Why not just use MIT for the whole thing and move on? The standard MIT
license covers "software and associated documentation files", which is
what this book would be in a way.
The MIT license does have a distinct advantage over CC-BY in that a
normal person can read and understand it.
- yuri