Re: cvs: phpweb / copyright.php license.html style.css /include layout.inc

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 02:19:42PM -0700, Jim Winstead wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 11:00:01PM +0200, eschmid+sic@s.netic.de wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 01:28:54PM -0700, Jim Winstead wrote: > > > good for them. > > > > Normally publisher pay the authors and print their names on the front > > page. > > good for them. i don't see the relevance. this isn't a normal > author/publisher relationship. If there is no author/publisher relationship then it is a plagiarism like the one which was early in this morning reported by Sebastian Bergmann to webmaster@php.net. > > > > Does any from the authors of the PHP manual get paid by iUniverse? > > > > > > no. as one of the authors, do i care? not at all > > > > My motivation goes down to NULL. If I'm a publisher (which happens soon) I > > haven't to share the incomings with the authors. > > welcome to the world of open source development. What do think the other authors? It could be very hard for the authors of the original English PHP Manual to get an ISBN number. For the French or German this should'nt be an issue. > > > do any of the authors of php itself get paid every time that red > > > hat or suse or caldera or anyone else sells a cd with php on it? no. > > > as one of the authors, do i care? not at all. > > > > PHP is (at least PHP 3) Open Source Software and under the GPL. The PHP > > manual is a different thing. It is not software. > > i do not agree that it is quite so different. I do and most lawyers also. The license makes for a manual less sense over the copyright law. > > > > The GPL was choosen by accident. It have been discussed already, that we > > > > should switch ASAP to another more appropriate license. > > > > > > interesting application of "asap". i think i was the one who first > > > raised the issue a couple of years ago. > > > > And why haven't you changed them? Use the license for manuals from the > > FSF or ask RMS which one is more appropriate. > > i didn't pursue changing the license because, while i thought it > would be nice to have a license that some publishers were more > comfortable with, i didn't find it compelling enough to waste time > tracking down people who had contributed to the manual so they > could approve a new license. Aha, the motivation will raise if the license will be changed ASAP. > you're the one who said we should switch "asap". i don't see > the pressure for change that you apparently do. > > and what makes you think i care what rms thinks is the most > appropriate license? his goals are quite different from mine. i > happen to think the fsf's documentation license is pretty lame. Because of the fact, that most Open Source Software Projects will die, because there is no good documentation. If you take the time and look over the site at www.iuniverse.com you get probably the idea. But don't understand me wrong. I have seen some questions, publishers asking for written permission to do a exotic language. That publisher have to pay for the own translators. > > > why did i raise it? so *more* publishers would print the manual, > > > and hopefully contribute back to making the freely-available manual > > > better, rather than paying yet another author to write the same > > > basic material. (but not so that the contribution would become a > > > requirement.) > > > > You are too late, April the First is over. > > huh? If I was not very clear it may be that I am an native Swabian speaker. I have finished the translation of Leon Atkinsons second edition as a technical editor and this was much more fun than contributing to the PHP manual and get no money. -Egon -- LinuxTag, Stuttgart, Germany: July 5-8 2001: http://www.linuxtag.de/ All known books about PHP and related books: http://php.net/books.php Concert Band of the University of Hohenheim: http://www.concert-band.de/ First and second bestselling book in German: http://www.php-buch.de/