RE: Licences

Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> Anton pointed some legal texts; these show the right on a
> compilation is already granted, so there seem to be no
> need to reserve it.

It's necessary to make clear which parts of the site are subject to a
non-free license, if any.  If the only license on the site is the LGPL, that
would also cover the compilation on the web site, which would be very close
to that of the printed book, which would reduce the protection on the
printed book.

> I guess it would be best to ask licensing-mXXj517/[email protected] or a lawyer.

We're currently officially moving into a beta-testing phase.  At this point,
I think it's acceptable to err on the side of caution when it comes to
retaining any rights we might wish to have in future.  We'll be beta-testing
the reaction to the licensing, as much as anything else.

> But anyway, will the book be free when I'll buy it?  For example,
> will I be able to photocopy a series of chapters for a friend,
> or for a classroom, or for a new book I'll publish? No, because
> it would infrige the copyright on the compilation. So the book
> is non-free.

Correct.  I don't see a problem with that, since it's how most new print
books are, and I didn't think that having the printed book be free was one
of our goals.  It takes a real investment of cash to get printed books onto
bookstore shelves, and if we even get that far, it'll only be by relying on
a company which is likely to have some expectations about copyright.

OTOH, we could make the decision now to make all aspects of the Cookbook
entirely free, but we need to be aware that this may close off some options
in future.

We'll always have the option in future of deciding that retaining the
compilation right isn't necessary, and we can put it under a free license
too.  Going the other way will be more difficult.

> An other example is: if all of the compilation copyright holders
> are dead (ie if the publisher is bankrupt), then nobody will we
> able to make a 2nd edition of the book (including the Schematics
> people themselves if they gave up the compilation copyright).

There are standard ways to deal with succession, reversion of rights to the
original holder, etc.  This would typically be part of the publishing
contract.  I don't think we need anything unusual in this respect.

> Let's reconsider the O'Reilly example. Section 4 of the GFDL actually
> permits "any one entity" to "add a passage of up to five words as a
> Front-Cover Text, and a passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover
> Text". So you now can have users release their work under the GFDL
> without covers text options, and then license the book under the GFDL
> with advertising for the publisher in the cover texts. That way, other
> publishers willing to publish the book will have to advertise their
> competitor, and the book will still be 100% free-as-in-freedom.

If we find a publisher willing to publish under these conditions, that's
great, but we may not know that in advance.

BTW, as far as publishers having to advertise their competitors goes, that's
not a deterrent to some of the less reputable companies.  They can sell
simply by charging a much lower price for the book.  That's exactly the kind
of reason that publishers like to have a clear copyright on the works the
publish.

Anton



-------------------------------------------------------
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