Re: Licences

--- Sylvain Beucler <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am following your conversation, and I feel a bit sad
> that the final book may
> be non-free for the end-user (ie the buyer of the book).
> I find it is not a good
> incentive when you are not sure that the book will be
> 100% free-as-in-freedom.

What freedoms would you want to see preserved?  I only want
to make it economically viable for someone to publish the
Cookbook in a form that will find its way into mass market
bookstores.  So I think what I want to prevent is anyone
competing with the intended publisher.  So I see that the
final clause in CopyRight should be reworded to state this
more directly. 

> Incidentally, a way O'Reilly has to discourage other
> publishers from publishing
> his free books is to set "Visit O'Reilly on the Web at
> www.oreilly.com." as the
> FDL back-cover text (eg
> http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/dbcpyright.html).

This doesn't work.  The FDL and Creative Commons licences
are all intended to apply to a single piece of work, not a
work composed from many parts and developed over an
extended period of time.  For example, what should the
"back-cover" say at this point in time?  The FDL doesn't
allow one to alter it, so we can't make reference to any
publisher later on, but if we don't create one now then
derivative works need not include it.

Off home now.

Noel

=====
Email: noelwelsh <at> yahoo <dot> com
AIM: noelhwelsh


		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. 
http://messenger.yahoo.com


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285