[Textbook-l] different open content licenses

[Daniel Mayer]

Toby wrote:
>OTOH, the physics and chemistry texts might 
>well want to borrow, not just information, but 
>entire chunks of text with only minor changes --
>especially given the modular nature of textbooks 
>that's been proposed here, where different 
>textbooks might share the exact same module.

And how exactly is this going to work if the physics textbook is GNU FDLd and 
the chemistry book is CCSA? You cannot mix and match like that because 
modules are part of a distinct work. Each work has to be under the same 
license. 

>I suspect that RMS will accept removing the 
>Invariant Sections. But I can't imagine him 
>changing the GNU FDL to allow redistribution 
>under a Creative Commons license;

If he only removes the invariant sections then the GNU FDL is completely 
copyleft and everything major we want it to be. Therefore the differences 
between the CCSA and the FDL will be minimal and the advantages of allowing 
CCSA along side of the FDL will also be minimal. 

>since CC doesn't share the FSF's ethical 
>philosophy (they even offer the non-free 
>ND and NC license options!), 

Strawman alert: The CCSA is the only CC license that could possibly be 
compatible with the GNU FDL in both directions. 

>how can he be sure that CC licenses will 
>remain free?

Simple: "Copyrighted works under the GNU FDL 2.0 or later version created by 
the Free Software Foundation can be copied, modified and distributed in full 
and placed under the Creative Commons Share Alike license version 2.0 or 
later version deemed to be sufficiently free and copyleft per FSF ruling. See 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl/compatibility/ for updates on the status of 
the Creative Commons Share Alike license."

>Who has trouble understanding it?

Given the number of copyvios we get daily and the great deal of confusion 
people have over copyright issues I would say the answer is self-evident. 

>I still expect that most users don't care at all.

And they will furthermore copy text Willy nilly between the various Wikimedia 
projects. This should be encouraged. However having incompatible licenses 
/within/ Wikimedia will hinder this free exchange.  

BTW, we have created over 200,000 encyclopedia articles ourselves and only 
occasionally use public domain or GFDL text created elsewhere. There is no 
reason to believe that the textbook project will be any different. 

Above all else; keep it simple.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)