I am going to make one last plea here as we are contemplating a WikiU / Wikiversity site .. we are about to create tons of new content so lets get the licensing thing right from the beginning.
It would be a setback to not be able to use previously developed materials but lets get it right while this project is in its infancy. The more I learn about RMS the less likely it seems that he is going to show any flexibiity or go along with ideas that arent his own. So lets make sure that the new content that we are creating isnt subject to his whims and control of the GNU FDL, lets at least make it so that the Wikiversity retains the right to release all submissions under whatever other license that it wants later on. Right now there are many restrictions on how to use the material and WikiMedia / Wikiversity doesnt control it, RMS does. Lets get it all into the hands of the Wikiversity.
--Karl
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
I'm not opposed to this in theory, but it isn't as simple as this, because the instant someone copies something from wikipedia's encyclopedia project to a textbook, the GNU FDL kicks in for at least that portion of the text.
--Jimbo
Op wo 20-08-2003, om 19:40 schreef Jimmy Wales:
I'm not opposed to this in theory, but it isn't as simple as this, because the instant someone copies something from wikipedia's encyclopedia project to a textbook, the GNU FDL kicks in for at least that portion of the text.
Modern educational theorists talk a lot about "learning objects". Connexions Projects for example consists of a lot of different "modules" that can make up a textbook. Basically they are all, separate, little chapters.
With this approach, using something of the Wikipedia would bring only that module onder the FDL, not the whole textbook.
Wouter Vanden Hove www.opencursus.be
WVH wrote:
With this approach, using something of the Wikipedia would bring only that module onder the FDL, not the whole textbook.
Wow, there is an idea. We could limit the GNU parts to only those modules identified as containing imported GNU material, and do some serious damage control.
Maybe each module could have the general Wikimedia license unless/until it was marked as GNU-limited.
Does this make as much perfect sense to anyone else ?
--Karl
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
It does have considerable merits, yes.
Karl Wick wrote:
WVH wrote:
With this approach, using something of the Wikipedia would bring only that module onder the FDL, not the whole textbook.
Wow, there is an idea. We could limit the GNU parts to only those modules identified as containing imported GNU material, and do some serious damage control.
Maybe each module could have the general Wikimedia license unless/until it was marked as GNU-limited.
Does this make as much perfect sense to anyone else ?
--Karl
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
This is a good idea. The only limitation I can see is as follows. Let's say that WP creates a geometry text, in modular format. There are 100 modules...7 of the modules are GNU-limited. This would require that those 7 modules have alternate modules for that material, especially if it was crucial to the whole geometry curriculum for that grade.
Karl's concern about maximum flexibility and extensibility is very valid, and should definitely be heeded - probably more for this sector of publishing, than most. If a school district, or a private printer, want to satisfy the general frameworks required by a specific state, *all* of the material should be able to clear, *without* hassles. Otherwise, even though the material is superior, has more variety, etc. it will be lobbied against as a *barrier to entry* for open source texts used in public schools.
Of course, it won't matter so much in private schools or home schools (they're more flexible, w/o tons of bureaucracy). For maximum impact, *every* basic curriculum taken on by WP should have *all* materials available as non-GNU-limited...even if that means starting from scratch with some modules for which there is already GNU-limited content available.
I can just see a sales representative form Prentice Hall (all the way up to the CEO of that company's textbook division) wining and dining textbook committee people from various states and bringing stuff like this up just before srucial votes are cast to accept or not accept certain books for district consideration.
Also, I can see the 'copyright police', prompted by commercial publishers, trying to intimidate privae and home schools into doing certain things with GNU-limited material. This industry knows how to use 'dirty'tricks to get its way.
Yes, it's a hassle, but it's reality. So if we want to dent the textbook oligopoly, we have to be able to present a seamless product.
Sanford
----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Wick" karlwick@yahoo.com To: "text" textbook-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] wikiversity licensing
WVH wrote:
With this approach, using something of the Wikipedia would bring only that module onder the FDL, not the whole textbook.
Wow, there is an idea. We could limit the GNU parts to only those modules identified as containing imported GNU material, and do some serious damage control.
Maybe each module could have the general Wikimedia license unless/until it was marked as GNU-limited.
Does this make as much perfect sense to anyone else ?
--Karl
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
Sanford Forte wrote:
This is a good idea. The only limitation I can see is as follows. Let's say that WP creates a geometry text, in modular format. There are 100 modules...7 of the modules are GNU-limited. This would require that those 7 modules have alternate modules for that material, especially if it was crucial to the whole geometry curriculum for that grade.
Not really.
It's useful to separate GNU-limited material from the freer stuff while it's being written on the Wikimedia site. But that doesn't matter so much in a printed textbook; anybody that wants to modify the printed textbook will find it easiest to come to Wikimedia to do so. So if the printed version is entirely GNU FDL, then that's OK, so long as Wikimedia has the ability to license the 93 other modules some other way if that should be desired later on. Only /then/ -- when we need to license 93 modules under (say) CC-BY-SA, do the 7 GNU modules disappear. But that would be for a different book.
I can just see a sales representative form Prentice Hall (all the way up to the CEO of that company's textbook division) wining and dining textbook committee people from various states and bringing stuff like this up just before crucial votes are cast to accept or not accept certain books for district consideration.
They'll bring up all kinds of nonsense about copyleft. But if we must, especially at first, present a GNU book, then that's OK -- the GNU FDL is used for lots of books (mostly software manuals) that are highly regarded and well used, so ours can be like that too. A disjunctive licence, or granting relicensing rights to Wikimedia, lets us make the source available to people using CC (or whatever), but even a GNU printed book is much freer than anything from Prentice-Hall.
-- Toby
Karl Wick wrote:
Wow, there is an idea. We could limit the GNU parts to only those modules identified as containing imported GNU material, and do some serious damage control.
Maybe each module could have the general Wikimedia license unless/until it was marked as GNU-limited.
Does this make as much perfect sense to anyone else ?
I'm sure that this has come up before. Remember the radio buttons?:
* This material is licensed to the Wikimedia Foundation for relicensing under any licence that the Wikimedia Foundation may deem appropriate in the future. * This material is covered by the GNU FDL and is therefore licensed only under the GNU FDL. * This material is covered by the Creative Commons BY-SA licence and is therefore licensed only under CC BY-SA.
(Although I believe that a previous version had better wording; this is just off the top of my head.)
-- Toby
Op do 21-08-2003, om 14:28 Toby Bartels wrote:
So if the printed version is entirely GNU FDL, then that's OK,
Yes, the GNU FDL is perfect for large printed textbooks, I wouldn't even mind using the invariant sections to promote the Wikimedia projects and invite everyone to join and help out.
but even a GNU printed book is much freer than anything from Prentice-Hall.
Oops, wrong example. Prentice-Hall is the publisher of the Bruce Perens' Open Source Books These books are under Open Publication License 1.0 with no options taken. http://perens.com/Books/
Wouter
Toby Bartels wrote:
- This material is licensed to the Wikimedia Foundation for relicensing under any licence that the Wikimedia Foundation may deem appropriate in the future.
If we did something similar to this, I suspect this should be worded differently, if for no other reason than to spare me the accusation that I'm trying to pull a scam. :-)
I'd prefer something like:
* This material is licensed to the Wikimedia Foundation for relicensing under any license that the Wikimedia Foundation may deem appropriate in the future, so long as that licensed is declared to be both free and copyleft by the FSF.
This eliminates the possibility of an accusation that I'm up to no good.
Oh, well, actually it doesn't. No matter what I do, I'm sure someone will say that it's all a big scam. :-)
--Jimbo
They'll bring up all kinds of nonsense about copyleft. But if we must, especially at first, present a GNU book, then that's OK --
_________ If that would solve the problem, great. It's so important to get the first project (pilot) done in a way that is 'simple' to understand by all concerned.
Sanford
Again, I must admit, the various licensing combinations and permutations brought out by Karl, Toby, Mav, Jimbo, and others are mind-bending (for me anyway). Rather than go on about this any further, and save time/bandwidth, I would appreciate any pointers (links, etc.) to the best descriptions of the differences between open source licenses. Send me anything you deem valuable.
Also, I trust that when the pilot finally gets off the ground, that folks here will have done their level best to see that the finished books are able to be taken up by schools and used without requiring the intervention of copyright attorneys. That's the bottom line. The public education sector is laden with so much bureaucracy, and rules, that any potential problem becomes magnified - often to the point of paralysis. In sum, that's what we want to avoid; I trust the folks in the project are sensitive to that. Thanks again for your efforts, and dedication to making this project happen.
Sanford
Sanford Forte wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
They'll bring up all kinds of nonsense about copyleft. But if we must, especially at first, present a GNU book, then that's OK --
If that would solve the problem, great. It's so important to get the first project (pilot) done in a way that is 'simple' to understand by all concerned.
I'm strongly sympathetic to Karl's concerns that contributions to wikibooks should automatically go under the GNU FDL. But I have no objection if the pilot project, for whatever reason, ends up being distributed (as a finished material) under the GNU FDL. The important thing is that the wiki source be as open as possible; if every finished text from now until whenever ends up having to go under the GNU licence (because it uses a module covered only under the GNU licence), then that's OK with me if that's how it ends up.
But Karl's OChem text doesn't have to use the GNU FDL, so if someday his text is printed up, then that may be freer.
-- Toby
Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
So if the printed version is entirely GNU FDL, then that's OK,
Yes, the GNU FDL is perfect for large printed textbooks, I wouldn't even mind using the invariant sections to promote the Wikimedia projects and invite everyone to join and help out.
I certainly would object, since Invariant Sections are not free. ^_^
but even a GNU printed book is much freer than anything from Prentice-Hall.
Oops, wrong example. Prentice-Hall is the publisher of the Bruce Perens' Open Source Books These books are under Open Publication License 1.0 with no options taken. http://perens.com/Books/
Sorry, Prentice-Hall! So then presumably /they/ wouldn't level such an objection at us (or if they did, then we'd have the perfect response -_^).
-- Toby
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org