Re: [Textbook-l] Introduction - California Open Source Textbook Project

state ----------- All, (and Jimbo) This is unfortunate, because it's based on misunderstanding. I will respond here as best I can, as the meat of Jimbo's reservations are gone into on another post (privately) to me. I will answer his post - I hope to his satisfaction. There would be in California, if California chose to sponsor the physical publishing of the book. I've explained why in earlier posts. Again, I have no quarrel with keeping the State form being a publisher, other than that it would cost taxpayers and school districts more money, otherwise. Consider that commercial publishers, even if they access GNU content - would have to *compete* for the state's business. That will drive costs up, not down. It sounds counterintuitive, but that's how the system works, in textbook publishing. I spent 15 years in that business. source ---------------- How is that? Here is some rational. It's all in the model that I posted to the list. some comments: I'm afraid that you're misunderstanding the intention of COSTP. In the model I forwarded to the list, it's pretty clear that the primary savings realized from a state-sponsored textbook publishing 'business' would be marketing, royalties, and carried inventory. If California was willing to pony up the cash (to itself, not to me) to perform the physical production of its own textbooks, (given certain licensing schemes), they would have been able to charge a slight premium back to other states for content that *California* had paid to develop, independent of commercial publishers. This reverse licensing procedure would save other states 100's of millions of dollars (realizing somewhere between 90-95% of the savings that California realizes). However, *if* Wickipedia were to develop the textbook, under the GNU FDL license, the picture changes slightly. Also, certain inefficiencies appear. Let's say that Wickipedia finishes a pre-algebra book, shows that book to the California board, and the board approves it. *Then* (under the GNU license) California could decide to publish itself (if it so chose), or commercial publishers could enter the fray, use the Wickipedia content, and compete on price for the end product (the textbook). That certainly alters the original intentions of the COSTP model, but I have no problem at all with it. However, what this will mean is that certain inefficiencies will get becak into the pricing model. As long as commercial publishers *compete* with each other for business that the state can render itself, prices will be higher to the state. These commercial firms will be competing for state business, and all the huckstering, marketing, conventions, etc. would continue. Note that 20-30% of the cost of a textbook comes from competitive marketing. -------------- Why? Under the original COSTP model, the state had to publish in order to remove the commercial publishers from the scene. The commercial publishers, currently 'owning' the model of textbook production, create cost and content inefficiencies. Why should thi sbe allowed to happen? Isn't it important for taxpayers to get their money's worth? YOur comments point in a direction that is completely opposite to what I've intended. In fact, under the original model (using Connexions [at Rice U.]), there would be "content bins" for every chapter of every curricular area. There would be multiple textbooks available (in fact, as many as possible) through open source that met the frameworks standards. Thus, the districts could choose whatever book, and/or approach, met their fancy. To points about cost overruns, the process would keep those to a minimum, because there would be no marketing, royalty, or inventory numbers to fudge. It would be very straightforward - in this way: here's the content, here's what it cost to print, do you want it? Case over. Competitive biding on the print side - internationally, if necessary, would bring the print cost way down. (It's a fact that university math books in the US that sell for over $100MSRP sell for less than $10 (real $$) in places like India, printed on cheaper stock, in paperback.) To points about limited choice by teachers and districts, I've answered some of that (above). Also, realize that one of the primary goals of COSTP is to *include* more teacher-related content in the process. It's in the model I posted. ---------- There are no negative side effects. They only exist if you assume the state owns the content, which under the GNU license, and via the WIckipedia publishing model, the state wouldn't. However, consider - again, looking ta the model I posted - what advantages would lie in state ownership (don't flip, I'm not proposing a state-run content collective...it's *anything* but that!) ---------- Why? The *goal* is to reduce cost to the state (really, the taxpayers, students, teachers, etc.), give other states an opportunity to share in the bounty, help internatinoal organizations get cheaper content in English, etc. It's in the model. What's wrong with that? One of the things that I've had to battle over the two years that COSTP has been in existence is having everyone - on all sides - understand that it's in the best interests of the end users of the product (textbooks) to have them created in open source. I hope this helps, and that everyone understands that any books created under GNU, by Wickipedia, would *not* be owned by California. Now, most of our kids are in public schools. They get crappy textbooks, some don't get any textbooks because their districts are too poor (it happens, even in California), the schools are overcharged by publishers, creating massive opportunity cost penalties for school districts, etc. The books coming from COSTP/Wickipedia would *not* be owned by anyone. That's a difference in the original model, but be warned that it will cost students and taxpayers more money than a program owned by one (or more) states, designed to create content efficiencies in K-12 curriculum. It will still save money, and create better content, and cost less than current books - but the price efficiencies won't be as dramatic You asked me what I had been lobbying for, and I told you. The parts of the model that had the state 'owning' the content are alterable, depending on where the money to publish comes from. The *goal* is to reduce cost to the state (really, the taxpayers), give other states an opportunity to share in the bounty, help internatinoal organizations get cheaper content in English, etc. It's in the model. Again, under the original tenets of the COSTP model, the state would own the content, and reverse license for a tiny fee. Under the Wickipedia operation, the state would not own the content, but would (as I understand it) realize *some* of the pricing benefits (but not all of them), because come of the "cost-of-goods-sold" would be removed by the fact that the content originates in open source. I would urge you to call me to straighten this out. Look, we're on the same side. We may differ how best to get to the end goal - using open source to benefit *people*, but that's the goal for COSTP. This is a pure effort, aimed at helping people, and helping to deliver what I consider to be the ultimate promise of technology - that is: more, for less, for everyone. Sanford