On 2004-10-04 15:14:33 +0100 Joshua Ferraro <jmf@kados.org> wrote:

However, I do think we should at least consider the possibility of a printed manual at some time in the future. So which license is likely not to prevent a publisher from signing on? Or would we self-publish?

I have seen this debated in a few other groups, most recently schemecookbook.org. Also, I still have a copy of the book contract I signed a few years ago (since cancelled before publication) which is a standard "fill in the gaps" affair. I have not had a book get finished yet, though... As far as I can tell, you will not be able to use most publishers' standard contracts if you are not the copyright holder and have some content under existing licences. Debates on this often have people guessing about publishers, which doesn't really help. There are free-software-friendly publishers like Network Theory http://www.network-theory.co.uk/ so a free software licence shouldn't really prevent getting a publisher. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk

Thanks for all the comments, folks! First, I'm not planning on publishing anything in "XML." All of the documents will need to be run through some sort of tool before they become a finished product, which might be just the French documents, the French documents pertaining to version 2.2, or the French documents pertaining to version 2.2 in pdf format. That's not my concern, at least not yet. I just want the raw content in a markup that can be processed many different ways. As for the license, the text I proposed is a combination of the text on the current Koha documentation and the "boilerplate" LDP license. Regardless of how you twist and turn the language, it seems to me that we want three things: 1. a copyright statement; 2. a statement about how the documents can be used, revised, and reused; 3. a statement that sets the conditions for commercial reuse of the documents. Anything else need to be in there? I would also suggest that authors who are not willing to contribute documents that can be released under the "Koha documentation license" -- however it is finally worded -- simply do not submit documents to the project. We can't be worrying about whether or not the English document dealing with version X's cataloguing interface (for example) can be used in the same way as the rest of the documentation. We'd never get anything put together! Better to have that portion of the documentation written by someone else, even if it's not as good as might have been. -- Stephen Hedges Skemotah Solutions, USA www.skemotah.com -- shedges@skemotah.com

I found this O'Reilly site explaining the "Open Books Project": http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/ Also, here is the MySQL copyrights and licenses page (they have decided not to distribute their manual under a GPL-style license). http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Copyright.html I don't plan to make any money from anything that I've written related to Koha and if anyone wants to modify it for inclusion on some other Koha reference work I'm fine with that (though I'd like some credit). So long as those basic requirements are met in the license and it's credible enough for a publisher like O'Reilly, I'm fine with whatever license we settle on. Joshua

Manuals treated as software? , Last june I've been in Porto Algre (Brazil) during the presentation of the CC in the FISL (http://www.softwarelivre.org). As far as I understood things that are not software (like, books, drawings or music) are not well covered by the GPL. CC let's artists (and writers) make derivative works from others works. MJ Ray wrote:

On 2004-10-04 14:10:20 +0100 Owen Leonard <oleonard@athenscounty.lib.oh.us> wrote:

...

I agree with MJR on this one, but *if* the consensus is that authors should be able to retain more rights that these licences allow, perhaps this is a resource we could use: [...]

I would really prefer it for the official koha manuals to be free software. What other authors do is up to them, but no CC 2.0 licence can be used for free software. CC also offer CC-GPL which is cool and froody... If you want CC, use that one ;-) Free software needs free software manuals.

Nice summary, MJ -- thanks! As it happens, I've been looking more closely at the Linux Documentation Project (more aabout that in a different e-mail) and noticed the license in their template for authors. Take a look at it at http://www.tldp.org/authors/template/Sample-HOWTO.xml What do you think of that license language? Stephen MJ Ray said:

On 2004-10-04 19:04:03 +0100 Andres Tarallo <tarallo@ort.edu.uy> wrote:

...

As far as I understood things that are not software (like, books, drawings or music) are not well covered by the GPL.

Yes, here is the long and short of the problem: a lot of people are going around saying phrases like that. You can't argue with it: no-one can say "this book is software" with absolute certainty because I can have a printed copy rather than a disk. Those things *can be* software, but need not be.

One thing that clouds the matter is that some languages (is French one?) have dictionaries that claim a word for program (logiciel) is a synonym for a word for software (software), which is a bit wrong. Some languages get it right. Esperanto might be one: program - programo; software - programaro. The extra -ar- indicates a collection centred around, as I understand it, but I'm not sure of the limits.

Anyway, hardware is the physical computer system - the components and trappings. Software has an opposite meaning to hardware. Software is the intangible transient part of the computer: the material stored on little magnetised elements of ferrous oxide, temporary electrical levels in silicon chips or whatever. Software includes programs stored in the computer, but is not only programs. John Tukey first used the word in print (American Mathematical Monthly, January 1958) describing it as the "interpretive routines, compilers, and other aspects." [Aside: is firmware really software or hardware?]

In part because of this, myself and others think it's fair to apply the same tests of freeness to all our creative work, rather than just programs, as long as they are computerised. I still call it free software, but some I know call it "free media" to placate those who deny books can be software.

The GPL actually has a fun definition right at the start of the licence:

"0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, ..."

In the GPL, Program means whatever "program or other work" is under the GPL!

Now, there may be aspects which aren't well-covered under the GPL, like public performance of music, but I'm not very familiar with those, so maybe CC are needed. I don't think the bugs in CC have anything to do with those aspects, because they hit manuals too.

Actually, I just heard Lawrence Lessig at UCL say to use the GPL for software not CC. For manuals that are software, the GPL looks like it will apply perfectly well and debian use it for some of theirs.

-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk

-- Stephen Hedges Skemotah Solutions, USA www.skemotah.com -- shedges@skemotah.com