WVH 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 ? --Karl __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

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(a)yahoo.com> To: "text" <textbook-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] wikiversity licensing

Op do 21-08-2003, om 14:28 Toby Bartels wrote: 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. 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

_________ 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

Karl Wick wrote: 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

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