3 ms·

> OpenStax at Rice University is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity Good to see that OpenStax is a 501(c)(3) charity, which is the nonprofit classification where do

> OpenStax at Rice University is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity Good to see that OpenStax is a 501(c)(3) charity, which is the nonprofit classification where donations are tax-deductible and thus restricted. That makes it harder for the organization to be influenced too directly by sponsors, since donations cannot be used for purposes which would yield direct marketplace advantage. I also see that they use a permissive, attribution-based license for their publications. That makes it easier for businesses to consume those materials and also to contribute. https://openstax.org/license https://openstax.org/license > The Creative Commons Attribution license that you and every author must agree to enables the content to be as reusable as possible. The combination of 501(c)(3) and business-friendly licensing reminds me of the Apache Software Foundation. The more orgs using that formula, the better!

andrepd 8y ago
I disagree. I would very much prefer a "GPL type" share-alike licence. The basic principle is: I'm releasing this content to the public, with the expectation that anyone that builds upon it will also do the same. Otherwise people can take what I did, use it for their profit, and not contribute back, hurting the overall community. This doesn't seem fair to me.
- zaarn 8y ago
  For that you have the CC-license family and other similar licenses for artistic creations. The GPL does not strike me as the license to use for text books (since it asks for source code an such) and I think the FSF has state that the GPL isn't a good idea for documentation, I'd carry that to books too.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    share-alike is a reference to a CC license, for example https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
- rectang 8y ago
  I don't happen to share your concerns and am happy to make it easy for businesses to use my work. There's room in the world for both Open Source and Free Software, and both do a lot of good! I think the 501(c)(3) is the more crucial point above. For what it's worth, both the Free Software Foundation and the Apache Software Foundation are 501(c)(3). Restricting the use of donations to avoid commercial advantage makes it much harder to subvert the nonprofit.
- jimhefferon 8y ago
  Long ago, in the LaTeX world, people first licensed stuff as "not for sale" (or even "not for sale to the military"). Then someone wanted to publish a "How to Use LaTeX" book, commercially but basically at cost, with a CD in the back having a complete collection of software. They were faced with being unable to do so because some of the software was licensed as not-for-sale. That seems counter productive, to me. That even applies to books: I've gotten a good number of inquiries from college bookstores asking if instructors can sell copies. They are worried that money is changing hands, when students buy a physical copy, and I am not getting any of it. I am glad those folks are looking out for my rights, but my point here is that "you can't sell it" is a more complex restriction than at least I (in no way a lawyer) thought when I first started doing this.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    The CC "share-alike" option and the CC "non-commercial" option are orthogonal for exactly this reason.
    - rectang 8y ago
      Even so, complying with share-alike licenses is more costly than complying with attribution-based licenses. Consider what it takes to rectify license violation (either inadvertent or deliberate). Officially, the full force of copyright law can be brought down, but historically neither tradition wants that -- they just want to bring violators into compliance for future distribution. For share-alike, derivative works must be released under the share-alike license, which can affect business strategy. For attribution-based, adding a few lines of notification suffices.
      - andrepd 8y ago
        Do you know what would be even more costly? Not having the free content in the first place, ffs. Quit whining just because you have to comply with the licence imposed by someone who is giving up their work for free.

andrepd 8y ago

I disagree. I would very much prefer a "GPL type" share-alike licence. The basic principle is: I'm releasing this content to the public, with the expectation that anyone that builds upon it will also do the same. Otherwise people can take what I did, use it for their profit, and not contribute back, hurting the overall community. This doesn't seem fair to me.

zaarn 8y ago
For that you have the CC-license family and other similar licenses for artistic creations. The GPL does not strike me as the license to use for text books (since it asks for source code an such) and I think the FSF has state that the GPL isn't a good idea for documentation, I'd carry that to books too.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  share-alike is a reference to a CC license, for example https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
rectang 8y ago
I don't happen to share your concerns and am happy to make it easy for businesses to use my work. There's room in the world for both Open Source and Free Software, and both do a lot of good! I think the 501(c)(3) is the more crucial point above. For what it's worth, both the Free Software Foundation and the Apache Software Foundation are 501(c)(3). Restricting the use of donations to avoid commercial advantage makes it much harder to subvert the nonprofit.
jimhefferon 8y ago
Long ago, in the LaTeX world, people first licensed stuff as "not for sale" (or even "not for sale to the military"). Then someone wanted to publish a "How to Use LaTeX" book, commercially but basically at cost, with a CD in the back having a complete collection of software. They were faced with being unable to do so because some of the software was licensed as not-for-sale. That seems counter productive, to me. That even applies to books: I've gotten a good number of inquiries from college bookstores asking if instructors can sell copies. They are worried that money is changing hands, when students buy a physical copy, and I am not getting any of it. I am glad those folks are looking out for my rights, but my point here is that "you can't sell it" is a more complex restriction than at least I (in no way a lawyer) thought when I first started doing this.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  The CC "share-alike" option and the CC "non-commercial" option are orthogonal for exactly this reason.
  - rectang 8y ago
    Even so, complying with share-alike licenses is more costly than complying with attribution-based licenses. Consider what it takes to rectify license violation (either inadvertent or deliberate). Officially, the full force of copyright law can be brought down, but historically neither tradition wants that -- they just want to bring violators into compliance for future distribution. For share-alike, derivative works must be released under the share-alike license, which can affect business strategy. For attribution-based, adding a few lines of notification suffices.
    - andrepd 8y ago
      Do you know what would be even more costly? Not having the free content in the first place, ffs. Quit whining just because you have to comply with the licence imposed by someone who is giving up their work for free.