Sanford Forte wrote:
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.
I see no reason to suppose that the state doing something directly would be cheaper than having private enterprises compete to do the same thing.
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.
No, it will drive costs down, not up. Simply hand-waving and saying that it would be cheaper, in complete ignorance of all economics and all historical precedent, is not an argument.
Shall the state take over the grocery stores, too? Do away with all that wasteful competition and marketing? Why do we need so many different car manufacturers, surely one firm could do a better job without all that wasteful competition driving costs up?
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.
Then I'm going to be completely and totally opposed to you at every step of the way. This aspect of your project is not one which I can in good conscience support, period.
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.
If you abandon the idea of a socialistic takeover of the textbook business, then we can work together. Otherwise, I'm going to be butting heads with you at every opportunity I can get.
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?
It *is* important that taxpayers get their money's worth which is precisely why I'm so horrified with your idea of a state run publishing company. What a monumentally bad idea!
Competitive biding on the print side - internationally, if necessary, would bring the print cost way down.
You're not making any sense. You can't just pick and choose *outcomes*, you have to choose a *policy*. And you've set down a policy that would result in horrible inefficiences. You claim to be opposed to competitive publishers, but you're in favor of competitive 'printers'. Same thing.
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!)
But you *are* proposing a state-run content collective. You've said so quite explicitly. You want the state to take over the content production process from private firms.
There's no surer way to corrupt and destroy the GNU-free process than this.
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
That's wrong, and it's not only wrong, it's stupid. I'm sorry, but this sort of nonsense really and truely upsets me greatly.
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.
If you are willing to abandon the parts of your model than involve cutting out private publishers via a state takeover, then I can support what you're doing.
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.
No, they will realize *much greater* cost savings under the open source model than under the 'state owned and controlled' model. Socialism doesn't work -- there is a virtual certainty that a state produced textbook would, open source or not, be extremely biased, shoddy in quality, and vastly more expensive than the free alternative.
Freedom works.
--Jimbo