4 ms·

The problem listed in the article is specifically “freedom to copy, modify and redistribute”, not “free to have” O’Reilly would be fine, if they allowed you to

by setr 6y ago

The problem listed in the article is specifically “freedom to copy, modify and redistribute”, not “free to have” O’Reilly would be fine, if they allowed you to modify the book as you please — but they don’t; like licensed software, you’ve only paid to access the content, but you don’t really own it. Basically every argument for FOSS is now being applied to the manual(s) as well

warkdarrior 6y ago
We really need an AGPL3 for documentation. If you read that documentation and then provide (consulting) services based on that knowledge, you really need to feed the profits back to the documentation authors.
- duskwuff 6y ago
  What you're proposing amounts to "if you read this, you must give us money". That's way outside the scope of a license and is completely unenforceable. It's also a great way to convince consultants to avoid your software entirely.
- setr 6y ago
  The documentation AGPL equivalent would simply be that if you provide a modified copy of the docs remotely (eg online), you must still provide the documentation source and all rights to modify & redistribute further. The AGPL just extends the GPL to apply in SaaS contexts — I don’t know how the documentation equivalent that would go anything close to modifying profit flow for consulting services
musicale 6y ago
> The problem listed in the article is specifically “freedom to copy, modify and redistribute”, not “free to have” If O'Reilly were to sell books on those terms, say in PDF+source form, what exactly would prevent "freedom to copy... and redistribute" from quickly turning into "free to have?"
- setr 6y ago
  The same arguments apply to FOSS, and can be addressed by all such pre-existing essays, arguments and flame wars. Again, this is just FOSS logic applied to documentation; the fundamentals are still the same. Anyways taking FOSS money-making strategies, some can be applied here: selling the tree, not the text (ala SaaS) Justifying consultancy service based on writing/maintaining (ala redhat, technical bloggers, etc) Selling the potential for more books/writing (ala patreon/Kickstarter) Being paid to write because someone or a community needs it (ala corporate-backed OSS developers) But anyways the monetization strategy doesn’t really matter, since the crux of the argument is that for FOSS to really be complete, the manuals need to be included in that definition; which seems to me entirely correct. Whether FOSS is a viable strategy in the first place is a separate question, but one RMS has spent a few decades making a case for, and a lot stronger of a case than I’d have given him if I heard him blathering on about it when he started
  - musicale 6y ago
    I was replying to the parent post, which was replying to my previous post, where I suggested that authors probably chose to work with O'Reilly because they wished to be paid for their work. (Though there may be other advantages such as print distribution, brand recognition, and iconic animal covers. Tim O'Reilly also seems like an interesting guy.)

by setr 6y ago

warkdarrior 6y ago

We really need an AGPL3 for documentation. If you read that documentation and then provide (consulting) services based on that knowledge, you really need to feed the profits back to the documentation authors.

duskwuff 6y ago
What you're proposing amounts to "if you read this, you must give us money". That's way outside the scope of a license and is completely unenforceable. It's also a great way to convince consultants to avoid your software entirely.
setr 6y ago
The documentation AGPL equivalent would simply be that if you provide a modified copy of the docs remotely (eg online), you must still provide the documentation source and all rights to modify & redistribute further. The AGPL just extends the GPL to apply in SaaS contexts — I don’t know how the documentation equivalent that would go anything close to modifying profit flow for consulting services

musicale 6y ago

> The problem listed in the article is specifically “freedom to copy, modify and redistribute”, not “free to have” If O'Reilly were to sell books on those terms, say in PDF+source form, what exactly would prevent "freedom to copy... and redistribute" from quickly turning into "free to have?"

setr 6y ago
The same arguments apply to FOSS, and can be addressed by all such pre-existing essays, arguments and flame wars. Again, this is just FOSS logic applied to documentation; the fundamentals are still the same. Anyways taking FOSS money-making strategies, some can be applied here: selling the tree, not the text (ala SaaS) Justifying consultancy service based on writing/maintaining (ala redhat, technical bloggers, etc) Selling the potential for more books/writing (ala patreon/Kickstarter) Being paid to write because someone or a community needs it (ala corporate-backed OSS developers) But anyways the monetization strategy doesn’t really matter, since the crux of the argument is that for FOSS to really be complete, the manuals need to be included in that definition; which seems to me entirely correct. Whether FOSS is a viable strategy in the first place is a separate question, but one RMS has spent a few decades making a case for, and a lot stronger of a case than I’d have given him if I heard him blathering on about it when he started
- musicale 6y ago
  I was replying to the parent post, which was replying to my previous post, where I suggested that authors probably chose to work with O'Reilly because they wished to be paid for their work. (Though there may be other advantages such as print distribution, brand recognition, and iconic animal covers. Tim O'Reilly also seems like an interesting guy.)