On Dec 29 2009, 8:35 pm, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com
wrote:
I'm posting this to (1) share what I've learned by reading a lot over
the last little while, and (2) ask for advice from people that have
thought a lot about licensing of books and notes.
When I've written documentation
Robert Dodier wrote:
On Dec 29 2009, 8:35 pm, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.com
wrote:
I'm posting this to (1) share what I've learned by reading a lot over
the last little while, and (2) ask for advice from people that have
thought a lot about licensing of books and notes.
When I've
Okay, I'm late to this party, but I'm very interested in this issue, as
I have plans to write a book that would be licensed under something like
GFDL or CC by-sa.
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 at 10:24PM -0700, Jason Grout wrote:
So it still seems that GFDL has some sort of requirement about
distributing
Dan Drake wrote:
I think I would be very happy if I wrote my book and someone else wanted
to include a version of one of the chapters into their own work, even if
that work otherwise used ordinary copyright, and if readers of the new
book didn't have access to Transparent copies, or if they
A few comments based on having thought carefully about this for a few
years now.
1. The preamble of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) from the
Free Software Foundation (home of the GPL) says:
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other
functional and useful
On Dec 29, 2009, at 9:24 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
William Stein wrote:
The major difference I see between GFDL and CC-by-sa is that CC-by-
sa
does not have the requirement that the source be distributed with
the
work.
The statement you just made above about GFDL is false. The relevant
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
David Joyner wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
...
I guess the situation changes if some example code from the document is
actually incorporated into Sage.
David Joyner wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
David Joyner wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
I guess the situation changes if some example code from the document is
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Dec 29, 2009, at 9:24 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
William Stein wrote:
The major difference I see between GFDL and CC-by-sa is that CC-by-
sa
does not have the requirement that the source be distributed with
the
work.
The statement you just made above about GFDL
I never really thought about this distinction--I wish there was
something like CC-by-sa-src as well. Source doesn't make as much sense
for a photo, but for something like a LaTeX document or a vector
graphic it is very valuable--almost an essential part of the share
alike idea.
They are
very confusing.
Yes.
I have a different question about this - would such things be
distributed only in source form, or also in compiled (.pdf?) form?
I could imagine this eventually adding a very large amount to the
download, if Sage and/or the CCLI grant application are as
David Joyner wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
I'm posting this to (1) share what I've learned by reading a lot over
the last little while, and (2) ask for advice from people that have
thought a lot about licensing of books and notes.
I have a different question about this - would such things be
distributed only in source form, or also in compiled (.pdf?) form?
Yes to the statement on each side of your or conjunction, in the
sense that the answer depends on which download you're talking about.
The source tarball? The
William Stein wrote:
The major difference I see between GFDL and CC-by-sa is that CC-by-sa
does not have the requirement that the source be distributed with the
work.
The statement you just made above about GFDL is false. The relevant
statement in the GFDL is: If you publish or distribute
Jason Grout wrote:
David Joyner wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
GFDL and CC-by-sa are not compatible with GPL, so if I wanted the notes
to be distributed with Sage (so the examples turn into doctests, etc.),
if I went with (1) or (2),
15 matches
Mail list logo
