From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marcin Borkowski Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Some ideas with Emacs Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 00:04:58 +0100 Message-ID: <878snus50l.fsf@mbork.pl> References: <87d0dbszjn.fsf@mbork.pl> <8736e4titj.fsf@mbork.pl> <871rtoti9w.fsf@mbork.pl> <87v9qysxbb.fsf@mbork.pl> <87lfrusaxu.fsf@mbork.pl> <87fti2s7dx.fsf@mbork.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="118064"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 27.0.50 Cc: VanL , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 03 00:06:21 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ibulm-000UWE-FW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 00:06:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45456 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ibull-0000o7-AX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:06:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33702) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ibukj-0000my-HJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:05:16 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ibukf-0006uF-2v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:05:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.mojserwer.eu ([195.110.48.8]:57440) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ibuke-0006nJ-Ll; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:05:08 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mojserwer.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90751E6D77; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 00:05:05 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.mojserwer.eu Original-Received: from mail.mojserwer.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.mojserwer.eu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7MNn3iehz0pP; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 00:05:01 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from localhost (jeden09-dwa27.echostar.pl [213.156.109.227]) by mail.mojserwer.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F5FFE65B2; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 00:05:01 +0100 (CET) In-reply-to: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.110.48.8 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:243025 Archived-At: On 2019-12-02, at 23:41, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> I never said I want to write a "free" (as in FSF) book. > > I'm not talking about any particular book or any particular author, but > I'm concerned here about whether I would consider a license "Free > enough" that I'd feel comfortable recommending the book to someone. OK. Does that mean that you only recommend "free" books to anyone? Do you make a distinction between paper books and electronic books? Just in case: I'm not attacking you, RMS or anyone else. I'm trying to understand your opinions (which I think I disagree with). Quite possibly I'm attacking some of your opinions (e.g. because I consider them false), but this is something else. >> I didn't say "disallowing". I said "disallowing without an explicit >> consent". > > That's pretty much the same, actually: a license only says what you can > do without asking for additional permission. It doesn't prevent the > author from giving additional permissions upon request. I can agree with this. >> Have you heard the story about the infamous Swedish >> translation of LotR? While I would not compare any of my books (written >> or to-be-written) with that of master JRRT, this is an important >> cautionary tale. > > That's why I said: > > I can agree that the author may not want to have his name directly > attached to the translation, but that's a far cry from disallowing > translations altogether. > > E.g. I could accept a license which states that any derivative work > (translation or otherwise) needs to use a different title and/or clearly > say not only that it's a derivative of your work but also that it is not > your work. Or something along these lines. That sounds fairly reasonable to me, I guess. Does GFDL work this way? I'm wondering whether there is some middle ground between CC-ND and GFDL here. For instance, one of the ideas I have would be to release a book under a strict license, disallowing even copying verbatim, then under CC-ND-something after, say, 3-5 years, and then GFDL after another 3-5 years. This looks pretty fair to me. On the other hand, such a scheme provokes an obvious question - why not GFDL right away? I don't have a good answer to this, I admit. I would probably be afraid that I'd lost a fair portion of any financial compensation. A book I coauthored was released under CC-BY-NC-SA (I would probably substitute ND for NC today), and - together with my coauthor - we almost earned the amount of money we put into it (IOW, we had a net loss). That's not entirely encouraging (although to be fair, we did not aim for profit with that book). Best, -- Marcin Borkowski http://mbork.pl