Who fancies a community effort to write a book?
Moderator: General Moderators
- RobertGonzalez
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 14293
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
- Location: Fremont, CA, USA
I know there had been talk about copyrights and licensing for this book project. I thought I'd take a stab at it.
I google'd several terms including 'How to copyright an eBook', 'copyrighting ebooks', 'ebook copyrights' and 'digital copyrights'. It appears that there are just as many takes on copyright for digital media as there are for print, and that the laws governing those right stem from the country that the material is being marketed in. I have included some links to things that I have found from the searches I did. The first link has some good information for a start to finish boom project in the USA. The second link is from a guy explaining, in simple English, what the rules governing the copyrights to his eBook are. The others are just good references.
As far as licensing this material, I am not sure how to approach this. If we are making the literature 'open-source', then we need to arrange any copyright rules we may use in a way that allows readers to use the material without their fear of being sued. If we include a codebase, we may want to pursue licensing the code, but for the book, I think the copyright we apply would essentially be the license for use. Am I mistaken?
For those that had posted about copyrighting and licensing, please let me know.
Publishing an eBook
One guy's simplification of his digital copyrights
Project Gutenberg Copyright rules
Wikipedia's entry on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (US)
I google'd several terms including 'How to copyright an eBook', 'copyrighting ebooks', 'ebook copyrights' and 'digital copyrights'. It appears that there are just as many takes on copyright for digital media as there are for print, and that the laws governing those right stem from the country that the material is being marketed in. I have included some links to things that I have found from the searches I did. The first link has some good information for a start to finish boom project in the USA. The second link is from a guy explaining, in simple English, what the rules governing the copyrights to his eBook are. The others are just good references.
As far as licensing this material, I am not sure how to approach this. If we are making the literature 'open-source', then we need to arrange any copyright rules we may use in a way that allows readers to use the material without their fear of being sued. If we include a codebase, we may want to pursue licensing the code, but for the book, I think the copyright we apply would essentially be the license for use. Am I mistaken?
For those that had posted about copyrighting and licensing, please let me know.
Publishing an eBook
One guy's simplification of his digital copyrights
Project Gutenberg Copyright rules
Wikipedia's entry on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (US)
- Maugrim_The_Reaper
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
- Location: Ireland
A copyright is a claim of ownership. As such it's the most important element to get right from the start - who has final authority over the book?
Licensing is a method for a copyright owner to grant the public certain permissions for use - also a license once granted cannot be revoked unless allowed for in the license text. Most open licenses have no revokation clause, in fact many have the opposite. Thus with a clear copyright, and an initial open license, the book is then effectively open (the copyright owners can only restrict future versions - past ones are safe from revokation of permissions).
Of course it's possible that the choice of license, can allow a liberal copyright policy within reason. If the license is open, and a random user contributes text and assigns the same license to it, then that leaves it open for inclusion in the book. The problem here is that there's no written proof of such, and no proof that the submitted text is itself not plagiarised from another source.
As you can see - messy area
.
A simple copyright system is probably best - avoids confusion, limits the holders to a smaller group, allows the license to be enforced and managed more effectively.
I'll read those links you posted during the day
. Also on a related topic - so far myself and aborint are hooked up to work on a PHP Patterns repository. Plan is for this to provide contributory material for the book - mainly the Design Patterns chapter to start with. Need a domain for it soon, but it's over at http://patterns.quantum-star.com .
Licensing is a method for a copyright owner to grant the public certain permissions for use - also a license once granted cannot be revoked unless allowed for in the license text. Most open licenses have no revokation clause, in fact many have the opposite. Thus with a clear copyright, and an initial open license, the book is then effectively open (the copyright owners can only restrict future versions - past ones are safe from revokation of permissions).
Of course it's possible that the choice of license, can allow a liberal copyright policy within reason. If the license is open, and a random user contributes text and assigns the same license to it, then that leaves it open for inclusion in the book. The problem here is that there's no written proof of such, and no proof that the submitted text is itself not plagiarised from another source.
As you can see - messy area
A simple copyright system is probably best - avoids confusion, limits the holders to a smaller group, allows the license to be enforced and managed more effectively.
I'll read those links you posted during the day
- RobertGonzalez
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 14293
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
- Location: Fremont, CA, USA
This was an area that confused me a little bit. Expecially when finding text on the internet that said something to the effect of 'whichever country the material is released in has the presiding copyright law to follow'. I may be reading to far into that, but it seemed confusing to me that if we release this book that certain laws could be enforced based on the country the reader got the ebook in. Again, I am just a little confused.Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:A copyright is a claim of ownership. As such it's the most important element to get right from the start - who has final authority over the book?
Another thing to consider is posibly a publisher. Not like a major publishing house or nothing, just something that could possibly point us in the direction we need as an international group of contributors to a project that would have an international audience. Just a thought.
That cool and kinda ironic. I am in the process of developing a website for PHP beginners. Basically a place for anyone new to PHP development to be able to 'wet their feet'. I am looking for contributors and hoping that some of that 'entry level' material could possibly feed the book as well.Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:Also on a related topic - so far myself and aborint are hooked up to work on a PHP Patterns repository. Plan is for this to provide contributory material for the book - mainly the Design Patterns chapter to start with. Need a domain for it soon, but it's over at http://patterns.quantum-star.com.
Your patterns repository is cool stuff. And arborint is surely advanced enough to offer some good input into in.
- Ambush Commander
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: New Jersey, US
Hey, Wikipedia has managed fine by asking users to license their content GFDL without having to reassign copyright. I think forcing a user to relinquish their copyright will alienate far too many. Pick a license and stick with it.A simple copyright system is probably best - avoids confusion, limits the holders to a smaller group, allows the license to be enforced and managed more effectively.
- Maugrim_The_Reaper
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
- Location: Ireland
- Ambush Commander
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: New Jersey, US
- Maugrim_The_Reaper
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
- Location: Ireland
Trivial code can follow the CC license I think. Substantial code is another issue - the CC is not a good choice for source code in the US (there is case law which argues against such a use, though no challenge to it has yet occured - big grey area). Maybe the LGPL in a disclaimer to allow free usage?
Or we can just leave it all under the CC with a disclaimer pushing it to PD... I suspect most code will remain trivial, but larger piece we can separately package under another license, and refer to the Book code as "extracts".
Or we can just leave it all under the CC with a disclaimer pushing it to PD... I suspect most code will remain trivial, but larger piece we can separately package under another license, and refer to the Book code as "extracts".
- RobertGonzalez
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 14293
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
- Location: Fremont, CA, USA
I was thinking that the book istelf would work best under CC. The codebase generated by the examples, especally if we offer a complete code sample library with the book, should be licensed. I was thinking LGPL or CC for that one two. I like the terminology and simplicity offered by the CC license. I think if enough contributors are aware of the license and who can do what with the stuff they contribute, they will know enough to either contribute or not. But after reading the various licenses out there, my eyes keep going back to the CC.
People, while I understand the importance of right license I would like to remind you that there are nothing to license yet. Isn't it's time to stop talking and start writing actual content?!
I partially linkified the TOC (based on current TOC structure), you can login to the wiki ( http://phpbook.quantum-star.com/doku.php?id=contentlist ), click the chapter of your choice and write it
I partially linkified the TOC (based on current TOC structure), you can login to the wiki ( http://phpbook.quantum-star.com/doku.php?id=contentlist ), click the chapter of your choice and write it
So what happens if someone contributes, and doesn't like the choice of license later?Weirdan wrote:People, while I understand the importance of right license I would like to remind you that there are nothing to license yet. Isn't it's time to stop talking and start writing actual content?!
Thats the reason you need to choose the license *first*. If you wait, then substantial portions of the contributions could be forced to be removed because a user doesn't like the license.
As an example, based on the community, I might consider contributing. However, if my code ended up under the CC license, I would not be happy, and might consider asking for my code to be removed.
(As an aside, the CC license is extremely bad for software. It's ability to be enforced has not only never been tested, even the CC group considers it unlikely to be applicable and upholdable for software. Text & multimedia good, code very bad).
By establishing the license up front, you clearly establish the "ground rules" for anyone contributing. Until you do, anyone can pull a Cartman - "Screw you guys, I'm going home!".. taking his contributions with him.
Another poster brought up copyright assignment. "Everyone contributes" is a wonderful concept - in Theory. In the US (notably, a different place than Theory), the law says that for you to be able to defend a copyright, you have to have all contributors available to provide their opinion. Without all contributors, the violators can claim that you have no legal standing to enforce it, and you can get thrown out of court.
I'm not saying its better, I'm just saying that if you want to have any legal defensibility, you should strongly consider copyright assignment. (As always, consult with a lawyer for specific legal advice).
Finally, my earlier comments about OOP and Procedural were a cautionary note, and have been brushed over by the opposition. Bringing up OOP immediately, or throughout the book is exactly the stance being taken by a large number of books today. You can make the argument that that puts you in good stead.
My argument is that by showing Procedural first, and then showing the transition to OOP, you are better able to address the realities of the environment. The vast majority of opensource projects are primarily Procedural code, and OOP rarely is a clean fit in a primarily Procedural environment. I find myself practically laughing at the Ivory Tower elitism portrayed by most OOP advocates. Its just not realistic.
By starting with Procedural (the most common codetype in opensource projects today), and showing how to transition to OOP, this book will set itself apart in a huge way. It will be more accessible, more intelligent, and more realistic.
I have no interest in yet another "OOP is the way, the light, and the means" book, but I have a tremendous interest in showing how to cleanly transition from Procedural to OOP. I'm not starting a flamewar - I'm making a clear point that differentiates between the two, so you can see why I care, and why you should too.
It, like the licensing issue, is not something that "can wait". It will change the tone, the design, and most probably, the people contributing.
As yet, there are no substantial portions to remove. Thus no reasons to worry about possible removal of the content which isn't there.Roja wrote: Thats the reason you need to choose the license *first*. If you wait, then substantial portions of the contributions could be forced to be removed because a user doesn't like the license.
Yet there are different things to worry about. Most opensource projects die in perinatal phase of development. As you may have noticed, enthusiasm is fading out already. Imho it's because nothing is being done.
- John Cartwright
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11470
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:10 am
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
I don't think this merits it's own forum on these boards.. probably best if there was a dedicated forums for this project. Thoughts?Oren wrote:This is ridiculous... Why hasn't this book gotten its own forum we were talking about?
We can't keep talking about all the different aspects of this book in one thread.
- John Cartwright
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11470
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:10 am
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Maybe only have a forum visible to those who join a specific usergroup.. I'll mention something to the other mods.Oren wrote:But we started this project here and the contributors are members here, I don't see why we need a whole new forum.Jcart wrote:I don't think this merits it's own forum on these boards.. probably best if there was a dedicated forums for this project. Thoughts?