7 ms·

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain this to you

254 points by mqt 17y ago

buugs 17y ago
This is what free software / free licenses needs, people who parade and exemplify it rather than compare it to non-free licenses or even hate on and fight against non-free software, by force.
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  I don't entirely understand his explanation though. All I understand is that Mark approves of what happened. I do not understand why it is a good thing and why he wants the world to work like this. He didn't explain that. The whole logic of what and how you are allowed to charge for in the free software/content world seems completely arbitrary to me, even though I have read so much about it.
  - thristian 17y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but my layman's understanding is something like this: * If you wrote/created/designed it, you get to pick the license. You can give it to some people under the GPL, you can give it to other people under the BSD license, you can negotiate all kinds of crazy licenses for arbitrary recompense you dream up - it's up to you. * If you received a copy of some GPL'd code, freely or in exchange for money, you have the right to give copies to other people - freely, or in exchange for money. If you paid $1000 for some GPL'd code, you're allowed to burn it to a stack of CD-Rs and hand them out on the street corner. If you got it for free off the Internet, you can copy it to your own website and charge people $29.95 per download (whether these actions are moral is another question, but they're legal). * If you give somebody some binary executables whose source was under the GPL, whether you gave them in exchange for money or for free, you must give them the source too, or give them the right to ask for the source later. If they ask for a copy of the source later on, you're only allowed to charge the cost of blank media - regardless of what you charged for the binary executables in the first place. I think that about covers it. How's that?
    - fauigerzigerk 17y ago
      If you wrote/created/designed it, you get to pick the license I do get that part. But it doesn't help me understand the merits of any particular license. Thanks for your attempt to explain the GPL to me. I already knew what the GPL says, I just don't see how it achieves its goals of increasing my freedoms. For instance, I'm not allowed to use the source code of some of the software google has linked to GPL code. Even when I pay for using it (like when I run my code on google's servers), I lose all freedoms related to some of the code covered by the GPL. If they let me download their code, they would have to let me use the source and sell it as well. But they can simply not let me download it and force me to run the code on their servers exclusively. So, in this scenario using the GPL means that I can not view or modify the source code of the software I build on. I have to pay for using it, and I have to abide by further arbitrary rules included in their terms of service, taking away even more fundamental freedoms.
      - henrikschroder 17y ago
        The GPL increases your freedoms by forcing people to give back, for free, the work they've done on top of GPL'd work they in turn received for free. With software as a service, this breaks down completely, because the derived work is never actually distributed. The GPLv3 explicitly tries to deal with software as a service, but it's definitely more problematic since it's not as solidly grounded in copyright law as v2 is, it's harder to detect breaches of it, harder to prove breaches, and harder for the people in the justice system to understand it.
        bad_user 17y ago
        > The GPL increases your freedoms by forcing people to give back, for free, the work they've done on top of GPL'd work they in turn received for free No, the GPL forces people to distribute the source code of their own modifications, but that's only on redistribution. That's why with software as a service this doesn't work. This has to be emphasized, because that's its central strenght. The majority of all software is made and run in-house, without ever being distributed. And open-source would not be what it is today without contributors that have SaaS as a business model. > The GPLv3 explicitly tries to deal with software as a service No it doesn't. The GPLv3 is still only a copyright license which only covers redistribution (as GPLv2). It is more problematic because it tries to define what distribution means (to prevent tivoization), and copyright laws have their own definitions, but it still is within normal bounds ... so it remains to be seen if it works, but FSF has got some pretty smart lawyers over there, and they did their homework. The license that tries to deal with SaaS is AGPL. But that's not a copyright license anymore, and while it is considered to be "open-source", some people think that it shouldn't be, since it places restrictions on the actual usage of the software (like an EULA). And you'll have a hard time convincing companies that have contributed to open-source to switch to AGPL. Hell will freeze over or a new gap in AGPL will be discovered before that happens. One way AGPL can be "monetized" is with dual-licensing. But that's just dishonest and definitely not free.
  - bad_user 17y ago
    I think the point is that once Mark released his work under the GPL, then he no longer has any control on how his work is used or distributed, even though it might be in disagreement with his wishes ... and he accepts that, because that's what "Free" is all about. ... that in contrast to forcing people to abide by your rules, without explicitly saying that in the license (e.g. by activism, harassment and public insults ... for reference see for example GNU/Linux [1] or the endless discussions about apologists/traitors[2] ). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy [2] http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/microsoft-codeplex-foundation http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/microsoft-codeplex-foundation
  - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
    From Pilgrim's letter to Apress: > [M]aybe the problems you perceive are really opportunities in disguise.
  - cschwarm 17y ago
    That's because the propositions are arbitrary. The definition of what is "Free Software" is arbitrary, because anyone could use a completely different definition and wouldn't be less right or wrong. The proposition that "Free Software" is moral is also arbitrary, for there's no rationale. There's just some agreement because of the bandwagon effect and multiple meanings of words like "freedom", "sharing" and so on. The simple truth is: It's sometimes useful and so is "non-free" software.
  - steveklabnik 17y ago
    The reason is that this is desireable is because anyone who's willing to spread what Mark has written helps Mark. Think of it as free advertising. This could be much, much longer. I actually spoke on a panel at my local PodCamp about all of this a few weeks ago... It's a very complicated topic. A lot of the ideas are very counter-intuitive to a lot of people. You've read a lot about Free software, but have you read the primary source? The Free Software Definition (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) would be a good place to start, if you haven't. Does that still not make sense? If not, I could try, but this is basically what I'd tell you, without some further context.
- eli 17y ago
  ...people with other sources of income.
  - staunch 17y ago
    ...which is 95%+ of open source contributors.
timf 17y ago
I was curious if the printed book included mention of the GNU license so I "searched inside" on Amazon. These two paragraphs are pretty odd sitting next to each other: http://timfreeman.org/copyright_dip.png http://timfreeman.org/copyright_dip.png
- bigiain 17y ago
  I see the first paragraph as being "written permission" to "copy distribute and/or modify" the document under some quite specific conditions, and the second as reserving all other rights. But yeah, it _does_ look strange...
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - omouse 17y ago
    It also says "prior written permission"...maybe it's a joke because the permission is granted by the prior paragraph?
- MarkPilgrim 17y ago
  I complained about that, but it was too late to do anything about it. (You don't usually even see those frontmatter pages during the book-writing/editing/proofing process.)
  - pageman 17y ago
    @Mark what should be the proper "text" - when I ask my students to copyright in the National Library - they insist on the Copyright "text" even though the Creative Commons "text" is also there.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    Why complain? It's a little funny: the latter paragraph ends "... without the prior written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher", which, apparently, the former paragraph grants. No?
- 17y ago
patio11 17y ago
I don’t know where that leaves you as a business. I suspect this leaves Apress at the "Require all further authors to contractually promise us, in writing, that they are assigning Apress the exclusive right to publish/distribute the content and have not written any legal landmines which contradict this clause into the sections we routinely don't read".
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- btilly 17y ago
  That is a likely response. But that will push authors who disagree with that to other publishers. I've noticed a number of technical books developed in an open manner (though usually not under the GPL) that then sold well. There are also a lot of good people around software these days who strongly believe in the ideals of free and/or open source software. Therefore I suspect that insisting on strict copyright control will lose more sales than it gains. But people will make mistakes as they learn this.
- tjogin 17y ago
  Save for time-travel, they can't really do that when they decide to pick up and "publish" a book that's been freely available in electronic form for eight years.
- adamc 17y ago
  Or it may drive them to offer much lower royalties on books offered that way -- and perhaps only pay them out after the profitability has been established.
- petercooper 17y ago
  That is the standard Apress contract now. Mark made his initial contract with Apress quite a long time ago when it was a far smaller company where special deals could be made.
  - spolsky 17y ago
    wrong, i still make special deals with apress all the time :D
kqr2 17y ago
I did a search on Amazon, but couldn't find the non Apress version of the book in question. I wonder if Apress forced the book to get delisted.
- RK 17y ago
  http://www.amazon.com/Dive-Into-Python-Mark-Pilgrim/dp/1441413022 http://www.amazon.com/Dive-Into-Python-Mark-Pilgrim/dp/14414...
  - drubio 17y ago
    Was anyone curious as to who this 'brazen' publisher was ? Publisher: CreateSpace https://www.createspace.com/AboutUs.jsp https://www.createspace.com/AboutUs.jsp "CreateSpace is a DBA of On-Demand Publishing LLC, a subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc." Seems there are still priorities at Amazon if they suddenly stopped selling it.
robin_reala 17y ago
So do Apress pay royalties to Mark currently, on a per unit sold basis? If these new people can publish under the GFDL then presumably Apress can (are?) as well.
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  I assume Apress is constrained by their contract with Mark.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    It's an interesting question though; such a contract must specifically remove any rights the GPLD gives Apress. Otherwise it's hard to see how they couldn't wiggle out of paying royalties?
    - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
      >such a contract must specifically remove any rights the GPLD gives Apress I assume the contract commits Apress to pay royalties to Mark based on their sales of the book's print edition. If they contractually agreed to pay royalties, they would be in breach of contract regardless of the licence under which Mark released his copyrighted content. Notwithstanding the licence, Apress must have decided that they could make enough money on sales to justify the money they're paying to Mark. Look at it this way: he might have released the book under a free document licence that another party could exploit, but he arguably wouldn't have written the book if not for his contract with Apress. So if they didn't agree to pay royalties, there would be no book to sell.
buro9 17y ago
You know, I love this. Simply because I like when I purchase classics (not covered by copyright any longer) that I have the ability to choose the book based on criteria I cannot usually factor in. I can opt for quality paper, for a nice and well-spaced font, for good-binding, for a nicer jacket, for a specific translation. I like that there is the potential that I could purchase this book and be able to choose such things, that I could say "I'll pay this guy over here a little more as he's invested in the quality of the medium.". I was very happy with the contents of Coders at Work for example, but disappointed with the paper selection and choice of font. I would have happily paid more to have a nicer package, so I love authors who would permit multiple companies to do this.
- danw 17y ago
  Personally I love Faber Finds for their dynamically generated covers http://www.faber.co.uk/faberfinds/ http://www.faber.co.uk/faberfinds/
- cobralibre 17y ago
  Just to be clear, translations are themselves protected by copyright. So, for example, if you want to read the Edith Grossman translation of Don Quixote, first published in 2003, you do not have the freedom to select from a wide variety of editions, as described in the parent comment.
diptanu 17y ago
Kudos to Mark Pilgrim for believing in GPL's philosophy! Love DIP.
- kingkilr 17y ago
  I sort of read this as more BSDish philosophy. One of the fundamental things he cites is the freedom for others to do something you might not like, which, IMO, is more of a BSD notion.
mark_l_watson 17y ago
Very cool explanation :-) I have several little writing projects that I distribute, but I chose the Creative Commons 'no commercial use, no derivatives' license because that was what I felt good with. People who create stuff have the right to choose the license.
mark_l_watson 17y ago
I just had an Apress book published, and the contract gives APress the distribution rights - fine with me since they effectively paid me to write the book: their advances allowed me to have a really good time and spend most of my time writing for 4 months. (I enjoy consulting, but writing is even more fun.)
JoeAltmaier 17y ago
Im confused too; in my basic Contract Law class, there's something called Value Received. If I don't pay for something, there is by definition NO CONTRACT. So any words (gpl etc) printed on the thing are just decoration.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  Which is why it's handy to remember that, while copyright licenses can be received as part of a contract, copyright licenses are not in themselves contracts.
- afiske 17y ago
  You're describing the concept of "consideration" in contract law -- i.e., that each party to an agreement needs to exchange something of value in order for a valid contract to be formed. However, one doesn't need to pay money for something in order for there to be an exchange of value. Here, the copyright holder (Mark) has clearly given you something of value -- a copy of the text of his book. In exchange, you give the him something of value, as well - your a promise to abide by the terms of the GNU FDL (as referenced on the book's copyright page). Your promise has value to Mark -- if it didn't, he (presumably) would have simply released his work into the public domain, rather than under a GNU license. The enforceability of open source licenses turns on this issue. The implication of your statement is that an open source license is unenforceable whenever a work is distributed for free (and obviously, this kind of distribution happens all the time). While there were some in the legal community who took this view in the past, the courts have rejected it. Check out the 2008 Federal Circuit decision in Jacobsen v. Katzer (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf), which turned on the enforceability of the open source Artistic License. Some of the more salient quotes: - "Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties." - "The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition."
dulbelajardul 17y ago
"My Zen teacher once told me that, when people try to do you harm, you should thank them for giving you the opportunity to forgive them." Awesome

254 points by mqt 17y ago

buugs 17y ago

This is what free software / free licenses needs, people who parade and exemplify it rather than compare it to non-free licenses or even hate on and fight against non-free software, by force.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago
I don't entirely understand his explanation though. All I understand is that Mark approves of what happened. I do not understand why it is a good thing and why he wants the world to work like this. He didn't explain that. The whole logic of what and how you are allowed to charge for in the free software/content world seems completely arbitrary to me, even though I have read so much about it.
- thristian 17y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but my layman's understanding is something like this: * If you wrote/created/designed it, you get to pick the license. You can give it to some people under the GPL, you can give it to other people under the BSD license, you can negotiate all kinds of crazy licenses for arbitrary recompense you dream up - it's up to you. * If you received a copy of some GPL'd code, freely or in exchange for money, you have the right to give copies to other people - freely, or in exchange for money. If you paid $1000 for some GPL'd code, you're allowed to burn it to a stack of CD-Rs and hand them out on the street corner. If you got it for free off the Internet, you can copy it to your own website and charge people $29.95 per download (whether these actions are moral is another question, but they're legal). * If you give somebody some binary executables whose source was under the GPL, whether you gave them in exchange for money or for free, you must give them the source too, or give them the right to ask for the source later. If they ask for a copy of the source later on, you're only allowed to charge the cost of blank media - regardless of what you charged for the binary executables in the first place. I think that about covers it. How's that?
  - fauigerzigerk 17y ago
    If you wrote/created/designed it, you get to pick the license I do get that part. But it doesn't help me understand the merits of any particular license. Thanks for your attempt to explain the GPL to me. I already knew what the GPL says, I just don't see how it achieves its goals of increasing my freedoms. For instance, I'm not allowed to use the source code of some of the software google has linked to GPL code. Even when I pay for using it (like when I run my code on google's servers), I lose all freedoms related to some of the code covered by the GPL. If they let me download their code, they would have to let me use the source and sell it as well. But they can simply not let me download it and force me to run the code on their servers exclusively. So, in this scenario using the GPL means that I can not view or modify the source code of the software I build on. I have to pay for using it, and I have to abide by further arbitrary rules included in their terms of service, taking away even more fundamental freedoms.
    - henrikschroder 17y ago
      The GPL increases your freedoms by forcing people to give back, for free, the work they've done on top of GPL'd work they in turn received for free. With software as a service, this breaks down completely, because the derived work is never actually distributed. The GPLv3 explicitly tries to deal with software as a service, but it's definitely more problematic since it's not as solidly grounded in copyright law as v2 is, it's harder to detect breaches of it, harder to prove breaches, and harder for the people in the justice system to understand it.
      - bad_user 17y ago
        > The GPL increases your freedoms by forcing people to give back, for free, the work they've done on top of GPL'd work they in turn received for free No, the GPL forces people to distribute the source code of their own modifications, but that's only on redistribution. That's why with software as a service this doesn't work. This has to be emphasized, because that's its central strenght. The majority of all software is made and run in-house, without ever being distributed. And open-source would not be what it is today without contributors that have SaaS as a business model. > The GPLv3 explicitly tries to deal with software as a service No it doesn't. The GPLv3 is still only a copyright license which only covers redistribution (as GPLv2). It is more problematic because it tries to define what distribution means (to prevent tivoization), and copyright laws have their own definitions, but it still is within normal bounds ... so it remains to be seen if it works, but FSF has got some pretty smart lawyers over there, and they did their homework. The license that tries to deal with SaaS is AGPL. But that's not a copyright license anymore, and while it is considered to be "open-source", some people think that it shouldn't be, since it places restrictions on the actual usage of the software (like an EULA). And you'll have a hard time convincing companies that have contributed to open-source to switch to AGPL. Hell will freeze over or a new gap in AGPL will be discovered before that happens. One way AGPL can be "monetized" is with dual-licensing. But that's just dishonest and definitely not free.
- bad_user 17y ago
  I think the point is that once Mark released his work under the GPL, then he no longer has any control on how his work is used or distributed, even though it might be in disagreement with his wishes ... and he accepts that, because that's what "Free" is all about. ... that in contrast to forcing people to abide by your rules, without explicitly saying that in the license (e.g. by activism, harassment and public insults ... for reference see for example GNU/Linux [1] or the endless discussions about apologists/traitors[2] ). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy [2] http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/microsoft-codeplex-foundation http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/microsoft-codeplex-foundation
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  From Pilgrim's letter to Apress: > [M]aybe the problems you perceive are really opportunities in disguise.
- cschwarm 17y ago
  That's because the propositions are arbitrary. The definition of what is "Free Software" is arbitrary, because anyone could use a completely different definition and wouldn't be less right or wrong. The proposition that "Free Software" is moral is also arbitrary, for there's no rationale. There's just some agreement because of the bandwagon effect and multiple meanings of words like "freedom", "sharing" and so on. The simple truth is: It's sometimes useful and so is "non-free" software.
- steveklabnik 17y ago
  The reason is that this is desireable is because anyone who's willing to spread what Mark has written helps Mark. Think of it as free advertising. This could be much, much longer. I actually spoke on a panel at my local PodCamp about all of this a few weeks ago... It's a very complicated topic. A lot of the ideas are very counter-intuitive to a lot of people. You've read a lot about Free software, but have you read the primary source? The Free Software Definition (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) would be a good place to start, if you haven't. Does that still not make sense? If not, I could try, but this is basically what I'd tell you, without some further context.
eli 17y ago
...people with other sources of income.
- staunch 17y ago
  ...which is 95%+ of open source contributors.

timf 17y ago

I was curious if the printed book included mention of the GNU license so I "searched inside" on Amazon. These two paragraphs are pretty odd sitting next to each other: http://timfreeman.org/copyright_dip.png http://timfreeman.org/copyright_dip.png

bigiain 17y ago
I see the first paragraph as being "written permission" to "copy distribute and/or modify" the document under some quite specific conditions, and the second as reserving all other rights. But yeah, it _does_ look strange...
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- omouse 17y ago
  It also says "prior written permission"...maybe it's a joke because the permission is granted by the prior paragraph?
MarkPilgrim 17y ago
I complained about that, but it was too late to do anything about it. (You don't usually even see those frontmatter pages during the book-writing/editing/proofing process.)
- pageman 17y ago
  @Mark what should be the proper "text" - when I ask my students to copyright in the National Library - they insist on the Copyright "text" even though the Creative Commons "text" is also there.
- andreyf 17y ago
  Why complain? It's a little funny: the latter paragraph ends "... without the prior written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher", which, apparently, the former paragraph grants. No?
17y ago

patio11 17y ago

I don’t know where that leaves you as a business. I suspect this leaves Apress at the "Require all further authors to contractually promise us, in writing, that they are assigning Apress the exclusive right to publish/distribute the content and have not written any legal landmines which contradict this clause into the sections we routinely don't read".

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
btilly 17y ago
That is a likely response. But that will push authors who disagree with that to other publishers. I've noticed a number of technical books developed in an open manner (though usually not under the GPL) that then sold well. There are also a lot of good people around software these days who strongly believe in the ideals of free and/or open source software. Therefore I suspect that insisting on strict copyright control will lose more sales than it gains. But people will make mistakes as they learn this.
tjogin 17y ago
Save for time-travel, they can't really do that when they decide to pick up and "publish" a book that's been freely available in electronic form for eight years.
adamc 17y ago
Or it may drive them to offer much lower royalties on books offered that way -- and perhaps only pay them out after the profitability has been established.
petercooper 17y ago
That is the standard Apress contract now. Mark made his initial contract with Apress quite a long time ago when it was a far smaller company where special deals could be made.
- spolsky 17y ago
  wrong, i still make special deals with apress all the time :D

kqr2 17y ago

I did a search on Amazon, but couldn't find the non Apress version of the book in question. I wonder if Apress forced the book to get delisted.

RK 17y ago
http://www.amazon.com/Dive-Into-Python-Mark-Pilgrim/dp/1441413022 http://www.amazon.com/Dive-Into-Python-Mark-Pilgrim/dp/14414...
- drubio 17y ago
  Was anyone curious as to who this 'brazen' publisher was ? Publisher: CreateSpace https://www.createspace.com/AboutUs.jsp https://www.createspace.com/AboutUs.jsp "CreateSpace is a DBA of On-Demand Publishing LLC, a subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc." Seems there are still priorities at Amazon if they suddenly stopped selling it.

robin_reala 17y ago

So do Apress pay royalties to Mark currently, on a per unit sold basis? If these new people can publish under the GFDL then presumably Apress can (are?) as well.

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
I assume Apress is constrained by their contract with Mark.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  It's an interesting question though; such a contract must specifically remove any rights the GPLD gives Apress. Otherwise it's hard to see how they couldn't wiggle out of paying royalties?
  - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
    >such a contract must specifically remove any rights the GPLD gives Apress I assume the contract commits Apress to pay royalties to Mark based on their sales of the book's print edition. If they contractually agreed to pay royalties, they would be in breach of contract regardless of the licence under which Mark released his copyrighted content. Notwithstanding the licence, Apress must have decided that they could make enough money on sales to justify the money they're paying to Mark. Look at it this way: he might have released the book under a free document licence that another party could exploit, but he arguably wouldn't have written the book if not for his contract with Apress. So if they didn't agree to pay royalties, there would be no book to sell.

buro9 17y ago

You know, I love this. Simply because I like when I purchase classics (not covered by copyright any longer) that I have the ability to choose the book based on criteria I cannot usually factor in. I can opt for quality paper, for a nice and well-spaced font, for good-binding, for a nicer jacket, for a specific translation. I like that there is the potential that I could purchase this book and be able to choose such things, that I could say "I'll pay this guy over here a little more as he's invested in the quality of the medium.". I was very happy with the contents of Coders at Work for example, but disappointed with the paper selection and choice of font. I would have happily paid more to have a nicer package, so I love authors who would permit multiple companies to do this.

danw 17y ago
Personally I love Faber Finds for their dynamically generated covers http://www.faber.co.uk/faberfinds/ http://www.faber.co.uk/faberfinds/
cobralibre 17y ago
Just to be clear, translations are themselves protected by copyright. So, for example, if you want to read the Edith Grossman translation of Don Quixote, first published in 2003, you do not have the freedom to select from a wide variety of editions, as described in the parent comment.

diptanu 17y ago

Kudos to Mark Pilgrim for believing in GPL's philosophy! Love DIP.

kingkilr 17y ago
I sort of read this as more BSDish philosophy. One of the fundamental things he cites is the freedom for others to do something you might not like, which, IMO, is more of a BSD notion.

mark_l_watson 17y ago

Very cool explanation :-) I have several little writing projects that I distribute, but I chose the Creative Commons 'no commercial use, no derivatives' license because that was what I felt good with. People who create stuff have the right to choose the license.

mark_l_watson 17y ago

I just had an Apress book published, and the contract gives APress the distribution rights - fine with me since they effectively paid me to write the book: their advances allowed me to have a really good time and spend most of my time writing for 4 months. (I enjoy consulting, but writing is even more fun.)

JoeAltmaier 17y ago

Im confused too; in my basic Contract Law class, there's something called Value Received. If I don't pay for something, there is by definition NO CONTRACT. So any words (gpl etc) printed on the thing are just decoration.

ubernostrum 17y ago
Which is why it's handy to remember that, while copyright licenses can be received as part of a contract, copyright licenses are not in themselves contracts.
afiske 17y ago
You're describing the concept of "consideration" in contract law -- i.e., that each party to an agreement needs to exchange something of value in order for a valid contract to be formed. However, one doesn't need to pay money for something in order for there to be an exchange of value. Here, the copyright holder (Mark) has clearly given you something of value -- a copy of the text of his book. In exchange, you give the him something of value, as well - your a promise to abide by the terms of the GNU FDL (as referenced on the book's copyright page). Your promise has value to Mark -- if it didn't, he (presumably) would have simply released his work into the public domain, rather than under a GNU license. The enforceability of open source licenses turns on this issue. The implication of your statement is that an open source license is unenforceable whenever a work is distributed for free (and obviously, this kind of distribution happens all the time). While there were some in the legal community who took this view in the past, the courts have rejected it. Check out the 2008 Federal Circuit decision in Jacobsen v. Katzer (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf), which turned on the enforceability of the open source Artistic License. Some of the more salient quotes: - "Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties." - "The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition."

dulbelajardul 17y ago

"My Zen teacher once told me that, when people try to do you harm, you should thank them for giving you the opportunity to forgive them." Awesome