That's exactly what I had in mind! Thanks JcartJcart wrote:Maybe only have a forum visible to those who join a specific usergroup.. I'll mention something to the other mods.
Who fancies a community effort to write a book?
Moderator: General Moderators
- Maugrim_The_Reaper
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
- Location: Ireland
The CC still appears appropriate - as a free book, either the code is similarly free or its not. If substantial code (i.e something a contributor believes should be licensed accordingly) we can still label it LGPL or other separately. The license is required before contributions - unfortunate but a necessity. Can Roja suggest a copyright strategy? You have the better mind by far when it comes to IP.
Just to try achieve some clarity... Most people agree OOP should be introduced early and often, does anyone disagree with displaying a transition from procedural to OOP? I think Roja's point is valid. Since the early OOP chapter is aimed at teaching the syntax over correct usage (a la OOP principles) it could be worked in successfully especially if example follow some consistent application (within reason) as a common thread.
On progress - initial enthusiasm before a project start is inevitable. I used my own to kickstart Patterns For PHP which will form the basis of at least some contributions to the book (arborint and santosj have indicated they are willing to contribute to this, and the book is definitely linked with its progress). We need forums, a final license decision, a wiki (preferably MediaWiki with a clean design) and some formal organisation team (see Everah's excellent Roles list). Once these are in place we can publicise and push people into contributing.
On the forums issue - I'm not a Moderator but I was given to understand dw had proposed something? What is the current status on this? I would note that this only benefits phpdn and we'll likely see as much activity as forums listed for phpdn linked projects... Netting the project into a private forum is a surefire way of pushing an external forum (where does the public go?) and most folk so far seem to think it worthwhile.
Just to try achieve some clarity... Most people agree OOP should be introduced early and often, does anyone disagree with displaying a transition from procedural to OOP? I think Roja's point is valid. Since the early OOP chapter is aimed at teaching the syntax over correct usage (a la OOP principles) it could be worked in successfully especially if example follow some consistent application (within reason) as a common thread.
On progress - initial enthusiasm before a project start is inevitable. I used my own to kickstart Patterns For PHP which will form the basis of at least some contributions to the book (arborint and santosj have indicated they are willing to contribute to this, and the book is definitely linked with its progress). We need forums, a final license decision, a wiki (preferably MediaWiki with a clean design) and some formal organisation team (see Everah's excellent Roles list). Once these are in place we can publicise and push people into contributing.
On the forums issue - I'm not a Moderator but I was given to understand dw had proposed something? What is the current status on this? I would note that this only benefits phpdn and we'll likely see as much activity as forums listed for phpdn linked projects... Netting the project into a private forum is a surefire way of pushing an external forum (where does the public go?) and most folk so far seem to think it worthwhile.
- RobertGonzalez
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 14293
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
- Location: Fremont, CA, USA
What if we approached the licensing issue as if there were not going to be one? Let those of use that want to contribute do so with the knowledge that everything we offer as contributed material stands to be copied, reused, taken, modified and/or edited without any credit given whatsoever. This is the absolute worst case scenario when it comes to licensing the material in the book. In this way every contributor will be prepared for the worst pending a decision on what license we want to use. Doing it this way protects everyone in the long run since once a license is chosen we (contributors) will be more covered than previously under the 'no license' license. Those that don't want to incur the risk of giving up their intellectual property rights don't have to participate at first (or until their is a license). Those of us that don't mind can begin the task of adding content.
I know this sounds like an easy way around the licensing issue. But if a contributor knows full well going in to this project that their contribution may not be protected, then if and when it does become protected they will experience no change in their rights other than an improvement in the protection of the contributions. Those that don't like the idea of contribuing without a license can wait until one is, if ever, implemented.
As for a copyright of the material, I think there is a lot more to look into in this arena. Given the scope of countries covered and the number of people involved, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to actually obtain a copyright. We may end up having to resort to releaseing the material only under a license.
Just my thoughts. Let the discussion begin! er, continue!
I know this sounds like an easy way around the licensing issue. But if a contributor knows full well going in to this project that their contribution may not be protected, then if and when it does become protected they will experience no change in their rights other than an improvement in the protection of the contributions. Those that don't like the idea of contribuing without a license can wait until one is, if ever, implemented.
As for a copyright of the material, I think there is a lot more to look into in this arena. Given the scope of countries covered and the number of people involved, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to actually obtain a copyright. We may end up having to resort to releaseing the material only under a license.
Just my thoughts. Let the discussion begin! er, continue!
Hello
I'm not sure i understand your point, you say that we need a license to prevent quiting people to remove their content, but as i understand intellectual property, this is not something we should / can protect from.
Any reason could lead to that fact, not only switching to another license, but some hot disagreement on anything in the book content could make anyone leaving the project with his content.
I do understand the problem, but i m not sure we can force someone otherwise, unless you specify in the license that anything inserted is given whatever you do with it. (all rights conceeded). Which is suicidal, considering there's no legal entity to own the project, and if there is, you may disagree with the use of your content, then what ?
That snake's biting his own tail.
People should be able to disagree and remove content, as in any publication, if you feel that your intellectual property is corrupted by the use someone does with it, and i mean in a broad sense, you may ask for the publication to remove your part.
I'm not sure i understand your point, you say that we need a license to prevent quiting people to remove their content, but as i understand intellectual property, this is not something we should / can protect from.
Any reason could lead to that fact, not only switching to another license, but some hot disagreement on anything in the book content could make anyone leaving the project with his content.
I do understand the problem, but i m not sure we can force someone otherwise, unless you specify in the license that anything inserted is given whatever you do with it. (all rights conceeded). Which is suicidal, considering there's no legal entity to own the project, and if there is, you may disagree with the use of your content, then what ?
That snake's biting his own tail.
People should be able to disagree and remove content, as in any publication, if you feel that your intellectual property is corrupted by the use someone does with it, and i mean in a broad sense, you may ask for the publication to remove your part.
I don't know much about copyright, but I think that this book should be totally free for any kind of use; with one exception: No commercial use.
Except this, anyone (not only individuals but also companies etc) can do whatever he wants with the book as long as it's not a commercial use.
Do you guys agree with that?
Except this, anyone (not only individuals but also companies etc) can do whatever he wants with the book as long as it's not a commercial use.
Do you guys agree with that?
- Ambush Commander
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: New Jersey, US
That's an interesting assertion. Wikipedia seems to get around it well enough. Can you explain / cite the proper sections from copyright law?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.
§501(a) might be it,
, but as long as we keep records of who edited the book (which we should be doing, and which a wiki system makes very easy), it should be easy to do this, even if it's only through email.The court may require such owner to serve written notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by the records of the Copyright Office or otherwise, to have or claim an interest in the copyright, and shall require that such notice be served upon any person whose interest is likely to be affected by a decision in the case.
Doing some more research in copyright law, §201(a,c) are interesting distinct concepts regarding group ownership.
Also, I agree with Feyd. Commercial use can be good: as I've repeated before, CC-NC has caused lots of problems in the past, partly because no one can agree what "commercial" use is. Here is another relevant link: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655
- Ambush Commander
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: New Jersey, US
I'm not going to put words in Feyd's mouth. However, in my interpretation, you're doing hard work in order to teach people how to program well in PHP. These people can then turn around and build commercial applications from the knowledge they gained from reading your book. Commercial use!
Edit - Ah, Feyd beat me to the gun.
Edit - Ah, Feyd beat me to the gun.
I guess you didn't understand me well... I don't care about that... What? You want people to read a PHP book and once they earn money from coding PHP you suggest they should pay to the book's author? Of course not.Ambush Commander wrote:I'm not going to put words in Feyd's mouth. However, in my interpretation, you're doing hard work in order to teach people how to program well in PHP. These people can then turn around and build commercial applications from the knowledge they gained from reading your book. Commercial use!
What I meant is, to prevent people from selling our book
- Ambush Commander
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: New Jersey, US
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, AS LONG AS the credit us correctly and link to the FREE VERSION we will be giving online.What I meant is, to prevent people from selling our book.
Actually, that's a good point. If we say non-commercial, that makes it impossible for any publishing company to publish our book, even if we were the ones who went to them. They have to make money, you know.
There isn't? You must be kidding... Was that a joke? You want to say that we will spend our time writing a book in order to try and convey the knowledge we have gained over the years, and then some stranger could come, print our book and make money out of it?Ambush Commander wrote:There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, AS LONG AS the credit us correctly and link to the FREE VERSION we will be giving online.
And why one would do that while he is trying to sell the book?Ambush Commander wrote:...and link to the FREE VERSION we will be giving online.
Why would it be impossible for us? I believe that we shouldn't have someone who say the final word...Ambush Commander wrote:Actually, that's a good point. If we say non-commercial, that makes it impossible for any publishing company to publish our book, even if we were the ones who went to them. They have to make money, you know.
We should have a group on the PHPDN forums in which all the members of this group are people who work on this book, that is: writers, editors and all the rest... When a decision needed to be done, all the members of this group will vote (a poll) and just like in any democratic society, the decision will have to reflect the majority.