Sorry for top-posting. I think cc-by and GPL are ways to spread your work (in case of orignal work).
If printing or packaging can enhance it, the factor to avoid in publisher contract clauses is "exclusivity" : you allow her to publish with profit for both (and additionnally can ask for publicity on "Free as freedom" issues, but you must ensure nothing will prevent you to publish elsewhere. In that way publisher becomes simply a non-transitive recipient among others. Note in case of technical books, there is almost no profit on hard copies whatever model is choosen (private copy / library). Le 19 mars 2016 04:29:45 GMT+01:00, "Andrew A. Adams" <a...@meiji.ac.jp> a écrit : >Fabio Pesari wrote: >> His silence left me some time to think about this issue. I came to >the >> conclusion that there isn't the mindset yet for this kind of >reasoning, >> and such proposals can be considered even offensive by some >developers. > >> I think some developers would feel more comfortable selling their >code >> to VCs and big companies than the users themselves, even if they got >to >> keep the copyright and to keep selling the programs. > >I had a similar experience recently in trying to persuade some academic > >literature Open Access discussants that CC-BY-SA (the copyleft CC >license >that corresponds most closely to the GPL) should be the correct license >for >published academic papers. I pointed out that "CC-BY-SA doesn't >directly >prevent someone from taking that work and putting it behind a paywall." >but I >then went on to pioint out that the CC-BY element means that anything >which >is just a straight copy won't be bought by anyone because it is (or at >least >should be) available gratis elsewhere (and easily finadable). I then >pointed >out that the SA copyleft element meant that anyone making some kind of >derivative work would have to offer that work under a libre license and >that >if it was really exxpensive no one would buy it (then who cares that it > >exists, no one is paying for it) and if it's cheap enough, some group >could >club together, buy access to a single copy anad then re-distribute. > >The only respondent just quoted the first line "CC-BY-SA doesn't >directly >prevent someone from taking that work and putting it behind a paywall." >and >said that this clearly means that CC-BY-SA is not the right license, >competely ignoring my analysis of the implications of the SA element. >Sigh. > >I must also admit, that since I don't generally get paid for my >academic >writing (*) that I don't really care if someone makes a derivative work >and >makes some modest money from it. So long as they don't do so by trying >to >restrict access to my work by me and others, I don't care if they >manage to >find a way to make money from adding something to my work. But, it does >seem >like lots of people a) do object and b) seem to think that there is >some >serious possibility that their work might make someone else rich >without them >getting in on the action. Of course those of us who've studied >copyright and >copyleft understand that copyright often favours exactly this kind of >exploitation (see the Queen song: Death of Two Legs, for example) while > >copyleft has a built in limiter. > > >(*) it's possible - I have an undergrad textbook for which I get modest > >royalties and I COULD register with the UK's copyright licensing >authority to >get some modest payments if I could be bothered. >-- >Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp >Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and >Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ -- Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.
