licenses for sage-enhanced books to be eventually included in Sage
Jason Grout
the last little while, and (2) ask for advice from people that have
thought a lot about licensing of books and notes.
I'm looking at different licenses for a Sage-enhanced set of notes, in
the spirit of the CCLI grant proposal that was posted here a few days
ago (please go read it and make comments! [1] :). I see these notes as
incorporating Sage code in examples, like you see in William's number
theory book or other tutorials that we've seen in various places.
I've spent a while reading up on licenses, and it seems that there are
three good possibilities for an "open" license that would allow others
to make modifications and freely redistribute the result:
1. GNU Free Documentation License 1.3
2. Creative Commons, Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
3. plain old GPL
GFDL and CC-by-sa are not compatible with GPL, so if I wanted the notes
to be distributed with Sage (so the examples turn into doctests, etc.),
if I went with (1) or (2), I'd have to dual-license the notes with GPL.
However, several organizations have just adopted plain GPL for their
documents ([2], maybe Debian too?). GNU does not encourage licensing
documents with GPL [3], though.
The major difference I see between GFDL and CC-by-sa is that CC-by-sa
does not have the requirement that the source be distributed with the
work. I like that (I really wish there was a CC-by-sa-src, with that
added requirement). However, it seems that there are lots of problems
with the GFDL license, not the least of which is the incompatibility
with GPL. See [4] or [5]).
So what do others do that have written notes that hopefully will
eventually be distributed with Sage think?
Thanks,
Jason
[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/3e9f66cf3fc3405f#
[2] http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Blog/LicenseChange
[3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
[4]
http://web.archive.org/web/20031009105046/http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Criticism
David Joyner
<jason...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
> I'm posting this to (1) share what I've learned by reading a lot over
> the last little while, and (2) ask for advice from people that have
> thought a lot about licensing of books and notes.
>
> I'm looking at different licenses for a Sage-enhanced set of notes, in
> the spirit of the CCLI grant proposal that was posted here a few days
> ago (please go read it and make comments! [1] :). I see these notes as
> incorporating Sage code in examples, like you see in William's number
> theory book or other tutorials that we've seen in various places.
>
> I've spent a while reading up on licenses, and it seems that there are
> three good possibilities for an "open" license that would allow others
> to make modifications and freely redistribute the result:
>
> 1. GNU Free Documentation License 1.3
> 2. Creative Commons, Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
> 3. plain old GPL
>
> GFDL and CC-by-sa are not compatible with GPL, so if I wanted the notes
> to be distributed with Sage (so the examples turn into doctests, etc.),
> if I went with (1) or (2), I'd have to dual-license the notes with GPL.
Can you explain why this is the case? If I wrote notes which retained all
copyrights *except* distribution, and allowed unlimited free
distribution, why would that
*prevent* them from being distributed with a GPL program? By notes I mean
text without code which is statically linked to Sage code.
Of course, it is another issue entirely whether or not William or
other developers
would want/allow material which is not open source to be distributed with Sage.
It seems clear to me that GFDL and cc-by-sa are open source though, so that
is not the issue.
> However, several organizations have just adopted plain GPL for their
> documents ([2], maybe Debian too?). GNU does not encourage licensing
> documents with GPL [3], though.
>
> The major difference I see between GFDL and CC-by-sa is that CC-by-sa
> does not have the requirement that the source be distributed with the
> work. I like that (I really wish there was a CC-by-sa-src, with that
> added requirement). However, it seems that there are lots of problems
> with the GFDL license, not the least of which is the incompatibility
> with GPL. See [4] or [5]).
>
> So what do others do that have written notes that hopefully will
> eventually be distributed with Sage think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
>
> [1]
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/3e9f66cf3fc3405f#
>
> [2] http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Blog/LicenseChange
>
> [3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
>
> [4]
> http://web.archive.org/web/20031009105046/http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
>
> [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Criticism
>
> --
> To post to this group, send an email to sage-...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
> URL: http://www.sagemath.org
>
William Stein
<jason...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
> I'm posting this to (1) share what I've learned by reading a lot over
> the last little while, and (2) ask for advice from people that have
> thought a lot about licensing of books and notes.
>
> I'm looking at different licenses for a Sage-enhanced set of notes, in
> the spirit of the CCLI grant proposal that was posted here a few days
> ago (please go read it and make comments! [1] :). I see these notes as
> incorporating Sage code in examples, like you see in William's number
> theory book or other tutorials that we've seen in various places.
>
> I've spent a while reading up on licenses, and it seems that there are
> three good possibilities for an "open" license that would allow others
> to make modifications and freely redistribute the result:
>
> 1. GNU Free Documentation License 1.3
> 2. Creative Commons, Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
> 3. plain old GPL
>
> GFDL and CC-by-sa are not compatible with GPL, so if I wanted the notes
> to be distributed with Sage (so the examples turn into doctests, etc.),
> if I went with (1) or (2), I'd have to dual-license the notes with GPL.
I think we have a firm commitment to only include in Sage software
whose license is GPLv2+ compatible. It is not necessary that we
make the same commitment for books/articles/documentation/etc.
included in Sage. For example, last time we had nearly the same
discussion at length (maybe 2 years ago on sage-devel?) mainly about
the wiki, we together concluded that content posted on the wiki be
licensed as follows: "By making an explicit contribution to the Sage
wiki (or the Sage documentation), one certifies that one's
contribution is licensed under the Creative Commons 3.0 license." See
http://wiki.sagemath.org.
> However, several organizations have just adopted plain GPL for their
> documents ([2], maybe Debian too?). GNU does not encourage licensing
> documents with GPL [3], though.
>
> The major difference I see between GFDL and CC-by-sa is that CC-by-sa
> does not have the requirement that the source be distributed with the
> work.
The statement you just made above about GFDL is false. The relevant
statement in the GFDL is: "If you publish or distribute Opaque copies
of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a
machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or
state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location from
which the general network-using public has access to download using
public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the
Document, free of added material." It is important to read the
definitions in order to understand the previous sentence -- see
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
> I like that (I really wish there was a CC-by-sa-src, with that
> added requirement).
That is not a requirement of GFDL.
> However, it seems that there are lots of problems
> with the GFDL license, not the least of which is the incompatibility
> with GPL. See [4] or [5]).
>
> So what do others do that have written notes that hopefully will
> eventually be distributed with Sage think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
>
> [1]
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/3e9f66cf3fc3405f#
>
> [2] http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Blog/LicenseChange
>
> [3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
>
> [4]
> http://web.archive.org/web/20031009105046/http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
>
> [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Criticism
>
> --
> To post to this group, send an email to sage-...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
> URL: http://www.sagemath.org
>
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
William Stein
It wouldn't. The program isn't linking in the notes as a library.
> Of course, it is another issue entirely whether or not William or
> other developers
> would want/allow material which is not open source to be distributed with Sage.
> It seems clear to me that GFDL and cc-by-sa are open source though, so that
> is not the issue.
I agree.
Anyway -- Jason thanks for starting this thread and bringing up these
questions. We haven't discussed them much on sage-devel in quite a
while, and discussing them is helpful to raise awareness. They are
very confusing.
William
kcrisman
> very confusing.
>
Yes.
I have a different question about this - would such things be
distributed only in source form, or also in "compiled" (.pdf?) form?
I could imagine this eventually adding a very large amount to the
download, if Sage and/or the CCLI grant application are as successful
as one would hope.
I do think that there should be some form of review for such materials
to be included in a Sage download. In fact, some people have
mentioned that we should have a better review process for interact
examples etc. on the wiki, though I don't know if that is as necessary
there.
Just throwing these related issues out there.
- kcrisman
William Stein
>> They are
>> very confusing.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> I have a different question about this - would such things be
> distributed only in source form, or also in "compiled" (.pdf?) form?
Yes to the statement on each side of your "or" conjunction, in the
sense that the answer depends on which download you're talking about.
The source tarball? The binaries?
> I could imagine this eventually adding a very large amount to the
> download, if Sage and/or the CCLI grant application are as successful
> as one would hope.
Which download? I wonder how much you think would be added? 1% on
top of the current binary? 10%? 50%? How much is too much? How
much is "a very large amount".
> I do think that there should be some form of review for such materials
> to be included in a Sage download.
I agree. There should be review for everything included in Sage, via
at least the standard trac server process.
> In fact, some people have
> mentioned that we should have a better review process for interact
> examples etc. on the wiki, though I don't know if that is as necessary
> there.
At least when interacts get included in sage (and not just on the
wiki), they will get reviewed. Part of our CCLI plan is to make it so
a large browse-able and tested library of interacts gets included with
sage.
> Just throwing these related issues out there.
Thanks. They're excellent questions and comments.
William
>
> - kcrisman
>
> --
> To post to this group, send an email to sage-...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
> URL: http://www.sagemath.org
>
--
Jason Grout
You're right. I was wrong, basing my opinion on a message from a
Creative Commons email message, but further reading of the entire thread
showed that it was the *relicensing* of work between CC-by-sa and GPL
that wasn't okay, but inclusion of CC-by-sa work (or GFDL, if I
understand things correctly) in a GPL package is okay.
I guess the situation changes if some example code from the document is
actually incorporated into Sage. For example, if in the book, I have a
sample function that draws a volumetric data visualization in the
document, or if there was a simple calculus function that wasn't already
in Sage, then there would be problems if we tried to put those into Sage
itself, unless I explicitly dual-licensed the code. Is that correct?
Thanks,
Jason
kcrisman
> > distributed only in source form, or also in "compiled" (.pdf?) form?
>
> Yes to the statement on each side of your "or" conjunction, in the
> sense that the answer depends on which download you're talking about.
> The source tarball? The binaries?
>
> > I could imagine this eventually adding a very large amount to the
> > download, if Sage and/or the CCLI grant application are as successful
> > as one would hope.
>
> Which download? I wonder how much you think would be added? 1% on
> top of the current binary? 10%? 50%? How much is too much? How
> much is "a very large amount".
Well, for instance several research monographs I have on my desktop
are between 1 and 3 MB on disk; imagine 20 graphics-intensive
textbooks at 10 MB apiece; that seems substantial to me. Currently at
least for some users I think bandwidth is still an issue - certainly
outside of Western academia. Probably 50%, without an option to
download only the program, would be excessive. Similarly, one should
easily be able to download just the texts :)
- kcrisman
Jason Grout
>> The major difference I see between GFDL and CC-by-sa is that CC-by-sa
>> does not have the requirement that the source be distributed with the
>> work.
>
> The statement you just made above about GFDL is false. The relevant
> statement in the GFDL is: "If you publish or distribute Opaque copies
> of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a
> machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or
> state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location from
> which the general network-using public has access to download using
> public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the
> Document, free of added material." It is important to read the
> definitions in order to understand the previous sentence -- see
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
Yes, that's the text in the GFDL license I was referring to. I
apologize if I over-generalized to the point of not being correct. I
was hoping to succinctly capture one of the big philosophical
differences between the two licenses. By "source" for a book, I meant a
latex document, which is something that is specifically given as an
example of a "Transparent Copy".
So it still seems that GFDL has some sort of requirement about
distributing a "Transparent copy" (in my case, a latex file; again, for
details, see the the actual license). To my understanding, CC-by-sa has
no such requirement to deliver a "Transparent copy", so, if I understand
things correctly, I am perfectly legal in extensively modifying a
CC-by-sa book (from the latex file obtained under the CC-by-sa license)
and then only distributing the resulting pdf file, licensed under
CC-by-sa. That's why I wish Creative Commons had an option to have some
sort of requirement for a "Transparent Copy" distribution, like GFDL,
making something like a CC-by-sa-src license.
Thanks,
Jason
Jason Grout
> David Joyner wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Jason Grout
>> <jason...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
>>> GFDL and CC-by-sa are not compatible with GPL, so if I wanted the notes
>>> to be distributed with Sage (so the examples turn into doctests, etc.),
>>> if I went with (1) or (2), I'd have to dual-license the notes with GPL.
>>
>> Can you explain why this is the case? If I wrote notes which retained all
>> copyrights *except* distribution, and allowed unlimited free
>> distribution, why would that
>> *prevent* them from being distributed with a GPL program? By notes I mean
>> text without code which is statically linked to Sage code.
>>
>
>
> You're right. I was wrong, basing my opinion on a message from a
> Creative Commons email message, but further reading of the entire thread
> showed that it was the *relicensing* of work between CC-by-sa and GPL
> that wasn't okay, but inclusion of CC-by-sa work (or GFDL, if I
> understand things correctly) in a GPL package is okay.
This is the thread I'm referring to in my paragraph immediately above:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-July/005871.html
Thanks,
Jason
Rob Beezer
years now.
1. The preamble of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) from the
Free Software Foundation (home of the GPL) says:
"The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other
functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to
assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it,
with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially.
Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way
to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible
for modifications made by others."
It would be shocking if this was somehow incompatible with GPL'ed
software. I view a mathematics textbook, including Sage code, to very
much be documentation for Sage in a very real sense - how to use Sage
to learn and do mathematics, and vice versa. And I think the spirit
of this license is consistent with the open philosophy embraced by
Sage.
2. The GFDL is extremely explicit about what you can, and cannot do,
and especially is clear about "Opaque" copies (think PDF) and
"Transparent" copies (think LaTeX-as-ASCII files). The GFDL allows
you to make sections as "invariant", which I have used on Prefaces,
but some then consider the usage to not be truly open. I no longer
use invariant sections, so you can modify my Preface if you
choose. ;-)
http://linear.ups.edu/preface-2.00.pdf
3. In contrast, the various CC licenses are quite short, I believe in
an attempt to be understandable.
4. Many textbook authors use the CC NonCommercial (NC) clause on
their books. My guess is that they do not want to see a traditional
publisher profit from their work. However, if an open text can be
placed on a print-on-demand site (like Lulu.com, or Amazon's
CreateSpace, or others), in some cases then sold at production cost,
one can always undercut a traditional publisher with a quality
physical product. Any increase in price needs to be accompanied by
some extra value (better manufacturing, distribution, availability).
If I could wave a magic wand, I'd ban CC-NC on all textbooks. ;-)
5. My linear algebra textbook runs to about 900 pages (embarrassing
yes, but it has everything a student would want, including full
solutions to many problems). PDFs are about 7 MB, but the jsMath
version compresses to 695K, so if distributed as compressed worksheets
we should be able to achieve similar sizes.
6. I build graphics from source, as part of a commitment to make the
*whole* book open source. I was using PyX, which now appears to be a
dead project, and will this spring shift to something like Asymptote
or MetaPost. As it is, the diagrams produced by PyX are PDFs at about
6K each, so the sizes of graphics can be mitigated as well in some
ways.
7. As noted, CC does not require source, perhaps because some media
(music, video, photos) don't have such a thing. Would we distibute
Sage just as binaries?
<opinion>
I have used CC on various things I have written, like an essay for
EDUCAUSE about open textbooks and video of presentations. It stikes
me as appropriate for something like the Sage wiki. However, I don't
think I would ever use it on a large project, like a textbook I have
spent several years on. It just stikes me as too loose about the
responsibilities placed on the next person to modify or distribute
your work. In contrast the GFDL is very explicit, and like the GPL,
places certain (reasonable) conditions on anyone who both modifies and
distributes your work, while giving everyone the right to use (read,
copy) your work, and to distribute it unmodified.
My hope for Sage is that we find it possible to eventually include a
reasonable selection of quality (ie reviewed, vetted) textbooks that
mesh nicely with Sage itself, and that we encourage licenses that are
in the best interests of both authors, teachers and readers.
</opinion>
Thanks for everybody's contributions to this thread. It does seem to
take a while to wrap your head around the idea of a world where
publishing houses are not the only players in the academic textbook
market.
Rob
Robert Bradshaw
I never really thought about this distinction--I wish there was
something like CC-by-sa-src as well. Source doesn't make as much sense
for a photo, but for something like a LaTeX document or a vector
graphic it is very valuable--almost an essential part of the "share
alike" idea. That's a strong argument for the GFDL. Even then, most
stuff doesn't fall into the 100+ pages category, and the GFDL is a lot
harder (for me) to be sure I understand (The CC, even the legalese
version, is much more readable.), and the GFDL requirements to contain
the full license is more draconian. Interesting question--now that
wikipedia is CC-by-sa, can I take the full text, make some
improvements, and satisfy the license by selling PDFs only? Would
certainly seem to violate the spirit of the license.
BTW, I don't think there's any conflict issues with the GPL of any
code involved--they don't link to each other.
- Robert
David Joyner
<jason...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
> David Joyner wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Jason Grout
>> <jason...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
>>>
...
> I guess the situation changes if some example code from the document is
> actually incorporated into Sage. For example, if in the book, I have a
> sample function that draws a volumetric data visualization in the
> document, or if there was a simple calculus function that wasn't already
> in Sage, then there would be problems if we tried to put those into Sage
> itself, unless I explicitly dual-licensed the code. Is that correct?
I agree that dual-licensing makes sense in that circumstance. However,
depending on how you define "simple" it is possible that the sample
function does not meet the creative work criteria and so was so simple
it was not copyrightable in the first place.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
Jason Grout
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Jason Grout
> <jason...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
>> David Joyner wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Jason Grout
>>> <jason...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I guess the situation changes if some example code from the document is
>> actually incorporated into Sage. For example, if in the book, I have a
>> sample function that draws a volumetric data visualization in the
>> document, or if there was a simple calculus function that wasn't already
>> in Sage, then there would be problems if we tried to put those into Sage
>> itself, unless I explicitly dual-licensed the code. Is that correct?
>
>
> I agree that dual-licensing makes sense in that circumstance. However,
> depending on how you define "simple" it is possible that the sample
> function does not meet the creative work criteria and so was so simple
> it was not copyrightable in the first place.
Is that equivalent to saying that including the small snippet of code in
Sage (say, 5-10 lines of straightforward code) falls under fair use? Or
is your statement and my statement not equivalent regarding why a short
piece of code can in fact be incorporated in a GPL-licensed file?
I guess I hadn't thought that I could consider a small simple
straightforward section of a book not copyrightable. That would seem to
imply that, for example, a few simple exercises in a textbook are not
copyrightable.
Thanks for helping us (me!) to wrap our heads around the issues.
Jason
Jason Grout
It's not 100+ pages. The requirements for distributing a transparent
copy come into effect if you distribute more than 100 copies of the
Opaque work. So, for example, if I had a class of 30 and a GFDL set of
notes, I could just distribute the PDF files to my class, and not worry
about publishing a Transparent copy.
In fact, it seems like if I distribute 100 copies of the PDF, and each
of those people distribute 100 copies of the PDF, and each of those
people distribute 100 copies of the PDF, then 1,000,000 people have the
document, but no one is forced to hand over a Transparent copy. Indeed,
if I distribute 100 copies, but no Transparent copy, then it seems that
my students legally *can't* distribute more than 100 copies each,
because they wouldn't be able to satisfy the Transparent copy requirement.
It seems more clear to me and more in line with free open-source
philosophy to follow the GPL, with sufficient definitions for the
"source" of the document (especially in the case of latex and sagetex,
where a latex "compiler" compiles the document to a final binary (pdf)
form).
Thanks,
Jason
Adam Webb
>
> I never really thought about this distinction--I wish there was
> something like CC-by-sa-src as well. Source doesn't make as much sense
> for a photo, but for something like a LaTeX document or a vector
> graphic it is very valuable--almost an essential part of the "share
> alike" idea. That's a strong argument for the GFDL. Even then, most
> stuff doesn't fall into the 100+ pages category, and the GFDL is a lot
> harder (for me) to be sure I understand (The CC, even the legalese
> version, is much more readable.), and the GFDL requirements to contain
> the full license is more draconian. Interesting question--now that
> wikipedia is CC-by-sa, can I take the full text, make some
> improvements, and satisfy the license by selling PDFs only? Would
> certainly seem to violate the spirit of the license.
>
> BTW, I don't think there's any conflict issues with the GPL of any
> code involved--they don't link to each other.
>
> - Robert
Actually, there is a company that does just that! They take wikipedia
articles and make books.[1] There was a discussion related to a new
Lisp book [2]. They are selling books on Amazon. I love the one that
is supposed to be about Georgia (Eastern Europe) that has a picture of
Atlanta, Georgia, USA on the cover [3]. Quality. ;-)
Cheers,
Adam
[1] http://www.alphascript-publishing.com/index.php?&act=nav&nav=10048
[2] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/784e2ad8f734fb8b/cda6809c45c123a7?#cda6809c45c123a7
[3] http://www.amazon.com/History-Georgia-country-Democratic-Tao-Klarjeti/dp/6130007442/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
Dan Drake
I have plans to write a book that would be licensed under something like
GFDL or CC by-sa.
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 at 10:24PM -0700, Jason Grout wrote:
> So it still seems that GFDL has some sort of requirement about
> distributing a "Transparent copy" (in my case, a latex file; again,
> for details, see the the actual license). To my understanding,
> CC-by-sa has no such requirement to deliver a "Transparent copy", so,
> if I understand things correctly, I am perfectly legal in extensively
> modifying a CC-by-sa book (from the latex file obtained under the
> CC-by-sa license) and then only distributing the resulting pdf file,
> licensed under CC-by-sa. That's why I wish Creative Commons had an
> option to have some sort of requirement for a "Transparent Copy"
> distribution, like GFDL, making something like a CC-by-sa-src license.
To help myself understand this stuff, I imagined that I had written my
great book and that someone now wants to use its content. What sorts of
uses do I want to allow, and what things do I want to prevent? My book
would be a regular sort of math book, and perhaps someone else writing a
book would want to include one of the chapters from my book. The GFDL
would require "Transparent" copies and copies of the full license, which
seems a bit annoying; if my book was licensed CC by-sa, someone could
put one of my chapters into their own book or whatever and simply
include a couple little statements of source, authorship and license;
only a few inconspicuous sentences would be required.
I think I would be very happy if I wrote my book and someone else wanted
to include a version of one of the chapters into their own work, even if
that work otherwise used ordinary copyright, and if readers of the new
book didn't have access to "Transparent" copies, or if they had to
visit creativecommons.org to see the license. So in this one instance,
the CC license strikes me as better than GFDL.
Dan
--
--- Dan Drake
----- http://mathsci.kaist.ac.kr/~drake
-------
Jason Grout
> I think I would be very happy if I wrote my book and someone else wanted
> to include a version of one of the chapters into their own work, even if
> that work otherwise used ordinary copyright, and if readers of the new
> book didn't have access to "Transparent" copies, or if they had to
> visit creativecommons.org to see the license. So in this one instance,
> the CC license strikes me as better than GFDL.
You might be interested in the CC-by license, then. Then your chapter
could be included in a GFDL book and also in a CC-by-sa book (and a
CC-by book, etc.). I thought David Wiley had a good blog post about the
propagation and reuse problems of specific copy-left licenses requiring
that derivative works carry the exact same license:
http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/347
Thanks,
Jason
Robert Dodier
wrote:
> I'm posting this to (1) share what I've learned by reading a lot over
> the last little while, and (2) ask for advice from people that have
> thought a lot about licensing of books and notes.
When I've written documentation for Maxima (apart from the
reference manual, which was already GPL when I arrived on
the scene) I have released it under terms of GPL, in the
interest of being able to simply copy and paste stuff back
and forth from the source code, and also in the interest of
being able to understand the license; in particular,
I find the GFDL incomprehensible.
FWIW
Robert Dodier
Jason Grout
> On Dec 29 2009, 8:35 pm, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm posting this to (1) share what I've learned by reading a lot over
>> the last little while, and (2) ask for advice from people that have
>> thought a lot about licensing of books and notes.
>
> When I've written documentation for Maxima (apart from the
> reference manual, which was already GPL when I arrived on
> the scene) I have released it under terms of GPL, in the
> interest of being able to simply copy and paste stuff back
> and forth from the source code
I think that was also one of the reasons for
http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Blog/LicenseChange, so you're not alone!
Thanks,
Jason