Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
Stefano Zacchiroli <email@example.com> wrote:
> [ in lists reply, because I really need a wide range of, possibly
> authoritative, opinions on this damned book! ]
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:48:45AM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> > So, if I understand O'Reilly's new view correctly, I could build a
> > business around selling printed versions of the content in
> > O'Reilly books under this license so long as each copy of my books
> > also contains material from "several other sources"? So, for
> > example, hardcopies of Alice In Wonderland plus this O'Reilly book
> > is okay, but hardcopies of this O'Reilly book alone is not.
> Absolutely right.
Well, what about a hardcopy of the O'Reilly book plus a one-sentence
dedication to my dog? To be more realistic, how about the statement
"Printed 2002 by FooBar Inc". It seems that allowing aggregate
for-profit distribution is the same as allowing for-profit
distribution of the original. It seems to be a nonsense restriction,
and makes me think that the O'Reilly people haven't quite thought
through the implications.