Robert Dodier wrote:
On Dec 29 2009, 8:35 pm, Jason Grout
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 for Max
On Dec 29 2009, 8:35 pm, Jason Grout
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 for Maxima (apart from the
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
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
> distributin
>
> 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" ide
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
David Joyner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> David Joyner wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Jason Grout
>>> wrote:
>
>
>
>> I guess the situation changes if some example code from the document is
>> actually incorporated into Sage. For example
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> David Joyner wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Jason Grout
>> wrote:
>>>
...
> I guess the situation changes if some example code from the document is
> actually incorporated into Sage. For example, if in the book, I have a
> sam
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 f
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 docum
Jason Grout wrote:
> David Joyner wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Jason Grout
>> 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), I'd have to dua
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 d
> > 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 tarb
David Joyner wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Jason Grout
> 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'm looking at dif
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 8:31 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>> 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?
Yes to the statement on each side of your "or" conjunction, in the
s
> 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 succe
16 matches
Mail list logo
