d11wtq wrote:Ok, so reading ~Roja's post above, I have no issue with posting out an official copyright document for all contributors to sign if and when we decide on a license to use. If anybody has something to contribute and we agree to publish it in the book we ask them to sign the paper first. Hmm... unless it can just be "signed" online?
There is a remarkably solid balance between recognizing users (by having a credits page), and protecting the legal rights of the collective work by having copyright assigned to a few (or one) copyright holder.
As I said, its a balance in the middle, a compromise, but in my opinion, it accomplishes both critical needs: Legal protection, and recognition of authors.
d11wtq wrote:I'll be brutally honest, I know jack-s*** about licensing so the way it's going I'll probably finish up seeing what the general feeling is, reading over the license and then giving my opinion but I say a majority vote should be the final decision maker.
I would try to narrow the field, to hone the discussion. Start by asking general, sweeping questions, like "Will commercial uses of some kind be acceptable?". That could eliminate a third of the major licenses out there. Then move on to less critical subtopics, like "Can other versions of the book have changes?".
By doing so, you clarify the issues - not the license choice - which gives you the criteria that needs to be met. Then you can use those criteria to weigh your choices.
I suspect that the commercial use issue is going to be the most difficult. As mentioned previously, saying no to commerical means it can never be published and sold, it cannot be hosted on a site that uses ads to pay its bills, and so on. It couldnt even be sold on a CD. I'm not saying its an entirely unreasonable position, I am just saying to be sure to consider ALL the issues with it.