Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
> > So far, we have generally chosen to interpret the aggregation clause
> > *very* strictly, as requiring even trivial aggregations to be
> > permitted. The license should also be neutral about the medium it is
> > distributed on.
> Well, why not simply drop this clause, if it can be circumvented easily by
> adding a one liner, one wonders why it went into the DFSG in the first place,
> and what we would have to remove from debian if we would remove this clause.
I agree that it would be nice if someone had the energy to follow
through on changes like this. However changes to the DSFG are not
easily done. But this does appear to be a weak spot.
> My problem is that i would really like to have this documentation
> installed on my computer, so i can look at itwhen i want, even if i
> don't own the book. This is already possible, since they make the
> full book available per web, but it would be ncie to have it also in
> debian, so i can install it form the debian CDs on my offline home
> box. (altough i own the book also)
> Not what is the problem with this ? It adds to the value of debian,
> adds to the freedom of the users, who may wich to ship only part of
> it, collect it with other valuable info and so on.
It adds _some_ value to the CD for the end user. But the same can be
argued about adding any non-free software.
> But the non printable clause, to whom does it add freedom, only to
> those who want to print the book and sell it, i guess it doesn't even
> block people from printing it for themselves, or joining money to have
> a set of them printed, where each copy will get to the personal use of
> the people printing them, and not sold.
> The only people who will have a problem with this, would be those guys
> who look at the debian stuff, and say, look at this nice book, let's
> get it print it without change, and sell it to make profit. This kind
> of behavior adds nothing to the debian community nor to the society in
> general, it only makes some people richer and that is it.
Let me try the following: s/printing book/burning CDs/
But the non-burning clause, to whom does it add freedom, only to
those who want to burn the CD and sell it, i guess it doesn't even
block people from burning it for themselves, or joining money to have
a set of them burned, where each copy will get to the personal use of
the people burning them, and not sold.
The only people who will have a problem with this, would be those guys
who look at the debian stuff, and say, look at this nice distribution, let's
burn CDs without change, and sell them to make profit. This kind
of behavior adds nothing to the debian community nor to the society in
general, it only makes some people richer and that is it.
Now, we all now that the right to resell Debian CDs leads to a market
where CDs costs a few dollars. Why would you think a company would get
away with selling a re-printed O'Reilly book for $50 under such a
license? Would the market allow it?
The question becomes: Does O'Reilly wish to allow the possibility that
the book will be reprinted for $5 or $10? Probably not before they have
made their own money on the sale of the book. So let's acknowledge that
the current license is non-free for this reason (unless they would allow
a trivial aggregation). When they consider the book to have lost market
value, they will consider releasing it under a free license, as they did
with 'MH & xmh: Email for Users & Programmers'
(http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/mh/) which I packaged for Debian as