[Foundation-l] Non free copyrights (was Wikipedia ideology)

Fri Nov 4 12:04:06 UTC 2011

>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:58:32 +0100
> From: "Peter Damian" <peter.damian at btinternet.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia ideology
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <B5D73D52B61047D99DB70BB610E8F971 at edwardPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>        reply-type=original
>
> > What license(s) will the book be released under?
> > MZMcBride
>
> Very funny :)
>
> I have just completed my book on Scotus, which will be submitted to
> the Catholic University Assocation Press next week.  Assuming it gets
> through their lengthy approval process,it will be published under
> whatever license they use - I imagine the 'evil' one.
>
> So to for the Wikipedia book, but it is early days to
> approach a publisher.
>
> If you ask why, I reply that no method has yet been devised
> to give attribution to the author of a work in a way that advances
> their career.  I will earn little or no money from either work, I
> imagine.  Note that Andrew Lih's book, which I have ordered
> from Waterstone's, is also under a standard copright license.
> At least I assume - I paid good money for it, because it
> was not available any other way.
>
> However, I do publish material on my own website,
> the Logic Museum.  I fund this myself, and the translation work
> such as here
>
> http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae
>
> is published under a 'free' license.
> http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/The_Logic_Museum:Copyrights
>
> I don't get any formal recognition for this.  I do it because I want this
> material, which is very hard to get access to, even for subject matter
> experts, to be freely available to everyone on the planet.
>
> Edward
>
>
>
I don't see the question as humorous, nor indeed do I see non-free licences
as evil.  As a community we spend a lot of time making sure that the
non-free copyrights that others have used are respected. But there is a
default expectation here that when we ask for volunteers time, the end
result will be released under a free license. So when someone asks for
people to put time into something that won't be under a free license then I
think  that at the least one should be up front about that; and being
upfront and open about it may even get people thinking about alternatives.
We have very similar issues in the research area. Would it make it more
difficult to publish your book if the arrangements were more like "The book
will be published under a commercial license, and any "off the record"
comments will remain so. But where the interviewee agrees, transcriptions
of the interviews will be posted on ??????? within x months of the
publication of the book."?

WeeSpielChequers