Kim Bruning wrote:
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 10:02:04PM -0400, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Furthermore, the content was developed as a result of a grant made to the Foundation with the stated goal of creating *free* content.
Just checking: Free as in speech, not as in beer, right?
Absolutely.
Put simply: we should welcome developments such as this, this is exactly what we intend people to do with our content, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with people taking this content, packaging it, and selling it.
There CAN BE something very wrong with using wikibooks itself to advertise/promote a third-party venture, and there CAN BE something very wrong with using the community's names to promote such work, but the exact parameters of these things is something that we have to feel our way forward with carefully.
My feeling here is that with some minor adjustments and communication about what is going on, this can go forward without difficulty.
--Jimbo