views:

208

answers:

6

I'm giving serious thought to releasing a programming book i wrote as open source to it's targeted community but i'm confused as to what such licenses give people permission to do. I also want to keep the original copyright.

For example, this is what i would like people to be able to do with my work:

  • Download and read it free of charge.
  • Be able to edit the original source files.
  • To publish any changes they make back to the community as open source.
  • To fork it if they wish (while maintaining the original open source license).

But these are the things i wouldn't like people to do:

  • Monetarise it in any form! (i.e. make any money from it in any form).
  • Keep any changes they make closed, especially translations or forks.

As i am pretty new to any form of open source i would be grateful for any input of ideas and advice.

+18  A: 
Koistya Navin
+1: Creative Commons.
S.Lott
+1 Exactly what I was going to post.
mmattax
More specifically, it sounds like you want the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license.
Chris Upchurch
BY-NC-SA is the version you want.
James Socol
he he i love the way that every 5 minutes i refresh this page and this answer keeps growing! lol! Anyway, Accepted!
Gary Willoughby
Very thorough answer. Excellent. I had not heard of the OPL.
artlung
+4  A: 

Richard Stallman put his book under the GFDL - GNU Free Documentation License, which is similar to CC by SA

Zifre
The GFDL has some issues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gfdl#Criticism_of_the_GFDL).
Chris Upchurch
As long as you don't use invariant sections, it is mostly Ok.
Zifre
There's still the issue of having to reproduce the entire license if you reproduce any part of the work. CC does this a lot better by allowing links to the license rather than the license itself.
Chris Upchurch
Yes, that is true. I think one of the problems with CC is that there are many different similar licenses, many of which are not compatible.
Zifre
+2  A: 

I've seen a few free books published under the Open Publication License. (Advanced Linux Programming, for one example.) You'll have to check to see if it fits your specific needs, but it may be helpful to others looking to publish free material online.

Bill the Lizard
A: 

Bear in mind that neither Free nor Open Source licenses can restrict software to noncommercial uses. In other words, in any OSI- or FSF-approved license, you are free to make as much money as you can, and Richard Stallman encourages this.

(The licenses sometimes restrict certain things that people do do for profit, but don't forbid making money.)

The same applies to keeping changes closed. These licenses may put restrictions on redistributing in closed form, but do not and cannot require the modifier to distribute in the first place.

Therefore, assuming that's what you really want, you don't want an Open Source-type license. You'll probably have better luck with Creative Commons licenses.

David Thornley
A: 

I think that trying to prevent people monetising it is a bad idea, particularly if you want it's readership to ve as wide as posible. If you look at the succeful FOSS projects (as oposed to books) their success (in terms of numbers of users) has to a fair part been driven by commercial companies who need to make a buck.

anon
Point taken, but it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth knowing that people could just download it on day one and make money from what took over a year of my life. I'd rather the whole community benefited from it.
Gary Willoughby
If somebody downloads it on day one, and creates a commercial distribution system, then either (a) it will flop, because people will get your book free, or (b) your book will reach many more people than it otherwise would have. Not that I want to push you to a license you don't want, of course.
David Thornley
I'm just being bitter! ;o) I would rather it all stayed free of charge.
Gary Willoughby
A: 

XQuery Kick Start was published under GFDL.

jm04469