The Python Papers Edition One

[tleeuwenburg@gmail.com]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One


Ben Finney wrote:

"tleeuwenburg@g mail.com" <tleeuwenburg@g mail.comwrites:
>

Yes, it's true that you can't resell copies of The Python Papers for
personal profits, but you may derive from it, reproduce and
propagate it. You're quite right to point it out.

>
Then please revise the false statement that the publication is "free
as in beer and freedom", or make it true by releasing the documents
under a license that does grant conventional free-software freedoms.
>
--
\ "They can not take away our self respect if we do not give it |
`\ to them." -- Mahatma Gandhi |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

I thought I just had. In what way does the statement "Yes, it's true
that you can't resell copies of The Python Papers for personal profits,
but you may derive from it, reproduce and propagate it" not provide
such a revision and clarification? Seriously, let me know what exact
statement you feel needs to be made, and I will endorse it accordingly
if it is accurate.

For my part, I don't see that there are ethically serious restrictions
on the freedom of use of the information contained within The Python
Papers. Call it "mostly free" if you like. There's no such thing as
complete freedom of information anyway, and we have done the best we
can.

It's not software. The GPL is not the only license which preserves the
free use of the information containted within and I don't think there's
any contradiction in what we are doing...

We considered releasing under the GPL, but felt that we wanted to
preserve two things which don't seem to be provided by it:
* Rights of the author to attribution as may be expected and desired
of an academic publication. The GPL doesn't seem appropriate for
disseminating the work of a single author.
* Rights of the author to have their words presented
* Opportunity for the author to commercially license their works to
other vendors. By choosing the Share Alike restriction, we have
encouraged the free dissemination of research information without
affecting its commercial use. It seemed to be the best middle ground
between taking a strong ideological position on either side that would
be bound to put people off side. It preserves some rights for the
author while still allowing a substantial amount of free re-use.
* Reputation as an unbiased, financially disinterested group. By
distributing under the license we chose, we hoped to establish our
credentials.

Your email indicates a possible concern that we are doing something
untoward -- this was not at all intended, nor is it true.

Cheers,
-T
(Editor-In-Chief)

[tleeuwenburg@gmail.com]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One

I thought I just had. In what way does the statement "Yes, it's true
that you can't resell copies of The Python Papers for personal profits,
but you may derive from it, reproduce and propagate it" not provide
such a revision and clarification? Seriously, let me know what exact
statement you feel needs to be made, and I will endorse it accordingly
if it is accurate.
>
For my part, I don't see that there are ethically serious restrictions
on the freedom of use of the information contained within The Python
Papers. Call it "mostly free" if you like. There's no such thing as
complete freedom of information anyway, and we have done the best we
can.
>
It's not software. The GPL is not the only license which preserves the
free use of the information containted within and I don't think there's
any contradiction in what we are doing...
>
We considered releasing under the GPL, but felt that we wanted to
preserve two things which don't seem to be provided by it:
* Rights of the author to attribution as may be expected and desired
of an academic publication. The GPL doesn't seem appropriate for
disseminating the work of a single author.
* Rights of the author to have their words presented in their originial form
* Opportunity for the author to commercially license their works to
other vendors. By choosing the Share Alike restriction, we have
encouraged the free dissemination of research information without
affecting its commercial use. It seemed to be the best middle ground
between taking a strong ideological position on either side that would
be bound to put people off side. It preserves some rights for the
author while still allowing a substantial amount of free re-use.
* Reputation as an unbiased, financially disinterested group. By
distributing under the license we chose, we hoped to establish our
credentials.
>
Your email indicates a possible concern that we are doing something
untoward -- this was not at all intended, nor is it true.
>
Cheers,
-T
(Editor-In-Chief)

Oh, and I should have gone back and revised that 'two' up to 'four'.
Snafu, sorry.

Cheers,
-T
(Only-Human EIC)

[Jacques Naude]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One

kilnhead wrote:

I for one like the pdf format. Nothing irks me more than help files in
multipage HTML. I want a document I can easily download and save.
Thanks for your efforts.
>
>
tleeuwenburg@gm ail.com wrote:

>Greetings all,
>>
>Some of you may have noticed the launch of the Python Journal a while
>back. Due to artistic differences, the journal has now been re-launched
>as The Python Papers. It is available under a Creative Commons License,
>something we felt was appropriate given its nature. Many here commented
>that this was important to them, and it is important to us also.
>>
>For a fuller description of what we hope the journal to be, I re-create
>my inaugural blog posting at the end of this email, or it can be found
>online here: http://pythonpapers.cgpublisher.com/diary
>>
>Some of you had a number of specific points to raise, which I can now
>answer properly since launching under our own banner.
>>
>1.) It takes too many clicks to download.
>A) We know, but it's like that to save our server. We will be
>publishing to a number of online archives, back-issues may be
>back-linkable from those.
>>
>2.) Is it free?
>A) Yes, as in beer and as in freedom. Creative Commons 2.5
>Noncommercia l, attribution, share-alike.
>>
>3.) Can I have an HTML version?
>A) No, we like it pretty.
>>
>4.) Why not try (insert favourite thing here)
>A) We will. Thanks for the fish.
>>
>" Volume 1, Edition 1 makes history
>>
>Welcome to The Python Papers. This journal, small though it is,
>represents the careful efforts of a small group of Python enthusiasts
>who are keen to form a better community in which developers may work.
>>
>As Editor-In-Chief, my role is manifold, but my goals are to improve
>the level of connectedness of Python developers, and in so doing
>improve my own developer experience.
>>
>The entire editorial board has put time into making this publication
>something which will hopefully lead to a buildup of momentum, fuelled
>by the enthusiastic involvement of others who find Python as exciting
>as we do.
>>
>The current issue contains one academic, peer-reviewed article, one
>industry article, and a list of events coming up in Melbourne,
>Australia. We would like to expand this list significantly. We offer
>our services in organising, collating and reviewing submitted content
>such that Python developers around the world may participate in the
>creation of something bigger than all of us, for the benefit of all of
>us. It may be a small journal, a little thing really, but all are
>welcome, and we look forward to getting to know our readers through the
>written word.
>>
>Please download the first edition, and consider both what it is and
>what it might be.
>>
>For those of you looking to publish an academic paper as a part of
>coursework or for interest's sake alone, we can offer a formal review
>process which will meet those guidelines while preserving the goals of
>freedom of information and community spirit.
>>
>Those who are using Python in their work may like to consider using the
>journal as a means of expressing successes or frustrations with either
>the language itself or specific applications. We may be able to offer
>code reviews and style guides, and would be happy to hear about and
>help propagate news of what is happening so that everyone can take an
>interest.
>>
>For those who would like a reliable source of information, The Python
>Papers presents a unique and current view into the state of Python at
>large.
>>
>To all of you, welcome!
>Cheers,
>-Tennessee (Editor-In-Chief)"

>

As do I. Also, it seems quite in line with how the academic world
approaches their publications.

Looks damn good!

[Shane Hathaway]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One

tleeuwenburg@gm ail.com wrote:

Ben Finney wrote:

>"tleeuwenburg@ gmail.com" <tleeuwenburg@g mail.comwrites:
>>

>>Yes, it's true that you can't resell copies of The Python Papers for
>>personal profits, but you may derive from it, reproduce and
>>propagate it. You're quite right to point it out.

>Then please revise the false statement that the publication is "free
>as in beer and freedom", or make it true by releasing the documents
>under a license that does grant conventional free-software freedoms.
>>
>--
> \ "They can not take away our self respect if we do not give it |
> `\ to them." -- Mahatma Gandhi |
>_o__) |
>Ben Finney

>
I thought I just had. In what way does the statement "Yes, it's true
that you can't resell copies of The Python Papers for personal profits,
but you may derive from it, reproduce and propagate it" not provide
such a revision and clarification? Seriously, let me know what exact
statement you feel needs to be made, and I will endorse it accordingly
if it is accurate.

The phrase "free as in freedom" is commonly understood differently from
the way you are using it. Free as in freedom usually grants the right
to distribute for a fee. Many Linux distributors depend on that right;
otherwise they wouldn't have the right to sell CDs.

IMHO your licensing terms are fine; you don't need to switch from the CC
license. Just avoid the term "free as in freedom", since the Free
Software Foundation has assigned that phrase a very specific meaning.

Shane

[Paul Boddie]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One

Shane Hathaway wrote:

>
IMHO your licensing terms are fine; you don't need to switch from the CC
license. Just avoid the term "free as in freedom", since the Free
Software Foundation has assigned that phrase a very specific meaning.

Agreed. It should also be noted that Debian - amongst the strictest
with regard to software and content licensing - do not regard the CC
licences as being "free as in freedom":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses

http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
http://people.debian.org/~evan/draftresponse.txt

Consequently, it may be appropriate to remind authors to also make
their works more widely available under a licence that may permit
further distribution, if that is desirable.

Paul

P.S. I still don't really understand why the FSF unreservedly
recommends the Free Art licence when it has a "choice of law" clause
that has prevented things like the GPL-compatibility of other licences
in the past.

[Carl Banks]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One

Shane Hathaway wrote:

Just avoid the term "free as in freedom", since the Free
Software Foundation has assigned that phrase a very specific meaning.

Bah. FSF is not an arbiter of the language. People whose idea of
"free" differs from FSF's still need to differentiate it from the
monetary sense of the word free.

Carl Banks

[Jerry Hill]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One

On 11/25/06, Jerry Hill <malaclypse2@gm ail.comwrote:

On 23 Nov 2006 15:09:11 -0800, tleeuwenburg@gm ail.com
<tleeuwenburg@g mail.comwrote:

Yes, it's true that you can't resell copies of The Python Papers for
personal profits, but you may derive from it, reproduce and propagate
it. You're quite right to point it out.

>
My problem with this is that I can't use anything in your publication
when working on commercial software. If I were to derive code from
something in the Python Papers, my understanding is that I would be
obligated to release it under a Creative Commons license. In fact,
even if all I do is read an article and then incorporate concepts from
it in my code, my understanding is that I may be creating a derivative
work.
>
Since the code that I write for work belongs to my employer, and may
someday be sold, I need to be careful about the licensing issues. They
might not be very happy with me if I wrote software for them that
ended up being encumbered with a license they didn't like. I don't
think there's much of a problem with Issue 1, since I don't think I'd
end up copying the code in the 'Python Coding Idioms' article, and
MontyLingua is GPL software and thus has its own licensing issues for
commercial software. Still, if there was a useful article on, say,
database or web interfaces, I would have to avoid it. If I have to
avoid using any articles that might actually be useful in my
professional life, I feel like I should probably just avoid the
journal all together. If I've misrepresented the relevant copyright
issues, I'd be happy for someone to correct me.
>
--
Jerry
>

[Steven D'Aprano]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 00:27:24 -0500, Jerry Hill wrote:

On 11/25/06, Jerry Hill <malaclypse2@gm ail.comwrote:

>On 23 Nov 2006 15:09:11 -0800, tleeuwenburg@gm ail.com
><tleeuwenburg@ gmail.comwrote:

Yes, it's true that you can't resell copies of The Python Papers for
personal profits, but you may derive from it, reproduce and propagate
it. You're quite right to point it out.

>>
>My problem with this is that I can't use anything in your publication
>when working on commercial software. If I were to derive code from
>something in the Python Papers, my understanding is that I would be
>obligated to release it under a Creative Commons license. In fact,
>even if all I do is read an article and then incorporate concepts from
>it in my code, my understanding is that I may be creating a derivative
>work.

And how do you think this is different from any other publication? That
Python Papers is under a CC licence is a red-herring.

>Since the code that I write for work belongs to my employer, and may
>someday be sold, I need to be careful about the licensing issues. They
>might not be very happy with me if I wrote software for them that
>ended up being encumbered with a license they didn't like.

Again, how is this different from any other publication? Unless you only
read public domain publications, anything you read is copyrighted, and
your arguments apply just as much -- perhaps more so -- depending on the
licence of that publication.


--
Steven.

[Maurice LING]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One

Jerry Hill wrote:

On 11/25/06, Jerry Hill <malaclypse2@gm ail.comwrote:
>

>On 23 Nov 2006 15:09:11 -0800, tleeuwenburg@gm ail.com
><tleeuwenburg@ gmail.comwrote:

Yes, it's true that you can't resell copies of The Python Papers for
personal profits, but you may derive from it, reproduce and propagate
it. You're quite right to point it out.

>>
>My problem with this is that I can't use anything in your publication
>when working on commercial software. If I were to derive code from
>something in the Python Papers, my understanding is that I would be
>obligated to release it under a Creative Commons license. In fact,
>even if all I do is read an article and then incorporate concepts from
>it in my code, my understanding is that I may be creating a derivative
>work.
>>
>Since the code that I write for work belongs to my employer, and may
>someday be sold, I need to be careful about the licensing issues. They
>might not be very happy with me if I wrote software for them that
>ended up being encumbered with a license they didn't like. I don't
>think there's much of a problem with Issue 1, since I don't think I'd
>end up copying the code in the 'Python Coding Idioms' article, and
>MontyLingua is GPL software and thus has its own licensing issues for
>commercial software. Still, if there was a useful article on, say,
>database or web interfaces, I would have to avoid it. If I have to
>avoid using any articles that might actually be useful in my
>professional life, I feel like I should probably just avoid the
>journal all together. If I've misrepresented the relevant copyright
>issues, I'd be happy for someone to correct me.
>>

As Steven mentioned -- anything you can read is copyrighted. The
difference is whether is the copyright effective or enforceable. What do
I mean by this? Without copyright, there will not be plagarism. Ask
yourself this question, can you copy William Shakespeare's MacBeth and
submit it as a literary work for a Master of Literary Arts degree? I
believe the candidate will be expelled from university. William
Shakespeare's MacBeth is still copyrighted work but not "enforceabl e"
because it is pre-1900's work and the author had been dead for more than
50 years. Similarly, works in public domain are still copyrighted --
academically, using work in public domain without attribution (giving
credits in the form of citations) is still plagarism.

This means that everything you had read since the days of "ABC..." are
copyrighted. That includes all codes you've seen in colleges etc etc. I
am afraid that to avoid copyright altogether, as far as your work is
concerned, you might have to seclude yourself in some pacific islands
and re-discover mathematics and computer science all over again from 1 +
1 = 2, and 2 + 1 = 3, and so on. Even so, patents will still get you at
the end.

In copyright, there is fair use. There is no way of avoiding it totally
-- how many ways are there to write a list comprehension?

Copyright just says attribute credits when you use someone else's work
within the limits of fair use; otherwise you might have to pay for it in
the form of a licence, subject to the copyright owner. I believe you've
done all these in college when writing your essays.

I believe in most cases, a simple declaration like "This function is a
re-implementation (or adaptation) of that found in <some periodical's
title, year, and page number>" will suffice.

Have you not read "The Python Cookbook", in book form or from the
website? How do you attribute credits when you are using the codes?

Cheers
maurice

[Robert Kern]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One

Maurice LING wrote:

As Steven mentioned -- anything you can read is copyrighted. The
difference is whether is the copyright effective or enforceable. What do
I mean by this? Without copyright, there will not be plagarism. Ask
yourself this question, can you copy William Shakespeare's MacBeth and
submit it as a literary work for a Master of Literary Arts degree? I
believe the candidate will be expelled from university. William
Shakespeare's MacBeth is still copyrighted work but not "enforceabl e"
because it is pre-1900's work and the author had been dead for more than
50 years. Similarly, works in public domain are still copyrighted --
academically, using work in public domain without attribution (giving
credits in the form of citations) is still plagarism.
>
This means that everything you had read since the days of "ABC..." are
copyrighted. That includes all codes you've seen in colleges etc etc. I
am afraid that to avoid copyright altogether, as far as your work is
concerned, you might have to seclude yourself in some pacific islands
and re-discover mathematics and computer science all over again from 1 +
1 = 2, and 2 + 1 = 3, and so on. Even so, patents will still get you at
the end.
>
In copyright, there is fair use. There is no way of avoiding it totally
-- how many ways are there to write a list comprehension?
>
Copyright just says attribute credits when you use someone else's work
within the limits of fair use; otherwise you might have to pay for it in
the form of a licence, subject to the copyright owner. I believe you've
done all these in college when writing your essays.
>
I believe in most cases, a simple declaration like "This function is a
re-implementation (or adaptation) of that found in <some periodical's
title, year, and page number>" will suffice.
>
Have you not read "The Python Cookbook", in book form or from the
website? How do you attribute credits when you are using the codes?

I'm not going to go through this point by point, but nearly everything you've
said is wrong.

--
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco

[Fredrik Lundh]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One

Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote:

If anyone has any good ideas for how to cope as a publisher with these
difficulties, I'm all ears.

has any of the format zealots posting to this thread actually
volunteered to produce any material for your publication? if not, I
suggest ignoring them. any bozo with a keyboard can contribute stop
energy to a project, but at the end, it's always the people *doing*
things that matters.

</F>

[Paul Rubin]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One

"tleeuwenburg@g mail.com" <tleeuwenburg@g mail.comwrites:

Your email indicates a possible concern that we are doing something
untoward -- this was not at all intended, nor is it true.

Although you might not have intended it, I feel it is still true. You
are misappropriatin g terminology ("free as in freedom") from the free
software movement that means a work is licensed in a way that meets
some specific criteria, that the license you're using does not meet.

[Paul Rubin]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One

"tleeuwenburg@g mail.com" <tleeuwenburg@g mail.comwrites:

I thought I just had. In what way does the statement "Yes, it's true
that you can't resell copies of The Python Papers for personal profits,
but you may derive from it, reproduce and propagate it" not provide
such a revision and clarification? Seriously, let me know what exact
statement you feel needs to be made, and I will endorse it accordingly
if it is accurate.

You should not use the phrase "free as in freedom". "Free as in beer"
is more accurate for the NC licenses.

For my part, I don't see that there are ethically serious restrictions
on the freedom of use of the information contained within The Python
Papers.

There is a big rant against the CC-NC licenses on Kuro5hin:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655

Call it "mostly free" if you like.

That is reasonable and if you're going to stick with the NC license,
it would be cool if you also were to descibe TPP as "mostly free", or
maybe "gratis" (as opposed to "libre") in your descriptions. "Gratis"
is sometimes translated "free as in beer", in contrast with "free
as in speech" or "free as in freedom".

There's no such thing as complete
freedom of information anyway, and we have done the best we can.

Well, others including the Wikimedia projects (which use GFDL) and the
PLoS journals (www.plos.org) (which use CC-BY) go further than you do,
so "we have done the best we can" sounds like an apology that "the
best you can" wasn't up to the level that those other, much more
significant projects have managed to do. Should you expect a response
other than "oh well, nice try"?

One of my desires as a free software user, for example, is to be able
to buy a new computer with a complete suite of software preinstalled
on the hard disk, including all the needed apps, development tools,
and documentation and source code for everything, and the freedom to
propagate it all in the same way. All the GNU/Linux stuff and all the
Python.org stuff, plus more general reference works like Wikipedia,
educational materials like Wikibooks, and scientific journals like
PLOS, are licensed in ways that would permit including it with such a
computer. It even includes some entertainment media like various
music downloads from Jamendo and the non-NC CC movies. But your
journal would have to be omitted.

We considered releasing under the GPL, but felt that we wanted to
preserve two things which don't seem to be provided by it:
* Rights of the author to attribution as may be expected and desired
of an academic publication. The GPL doesn't seem appropriate for
disseminating the work of a single author.
* Rights of the author to have their words presented

I would have suggested the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) that
Wikipedia uses, but that's just me.

* Opportunity for the author to commercially license their works to
other vendors. By choosing the Share Alike restriction, we have
encouraged the free dissemination of research information without
affecting its commercial use.

Right, the effect on commercial use comes from the NC restriction,
not the SA restriction.

* Rights of the author to have their words presented

I'm not sure what you're getting at but if you mean no modified
versions, you need -ND for that.

It seemed to be the best middle ground between taking a strong
ideological position on either side that would be bound to put
people off side. It preserves some rights for the author while still
allowing a substantial amount of free re-use.

"Middle grounds" often combine the disadvantages of both "endpoints" .
And failing to take a strong position can leave you in a weak one.

* Reputation as an
unbiased, financially disinterested group.

The NC licenses withhold some rights for exclusive use by the initial
publisher, releasing only a subset to users. That is usually not a
sign of disinterest. For example, Cory Doctorow's novels are
published under NC licenses, which he says is working for him as a
marketing tool. But he has a clear and undisguised financial interest
in choosing the NC license.

By distributing under the
license we chose, we hoped to establish our credentials.

Well, it seems to me that you're putting out yet another non-libre
publication, it's nice that it's gratis but I don't think it helps
establish credentials with FOSS users and the confusion so far may
actually be hurting.

Your email indicates a possible concern that we are doing something
untoward -- this was not at all intended, nor is it true.

As mentioned in another post, I feel that you're (perhaps
unintentionally ) trying to attach to your publication the good
associations created by the licensing practices of the FOSS movement,
while not actually following those practices. "Untoward" might be a
slightly overstrong term, however, you are creating confusion and
maybe suffering from it yourself.

Here is the issue: people who write FOSS code and documentation often
make sacrifices (of their free time, or of potential revenue) in order
to do so. They are aware of those sacrifices and make them anyway.
So it's a bit grating to those of us who work on FOSS projects (or
even just admire them) when someone comes along and tries (even
unintentionally ) to attach to themselves the recognition comes from
those sacrifices, without actually making the same sacrifices. That
may explain the reaction you're getting.

[Jerry Hill]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One

On 11/25/06, Steven D'Aprano <steve@remove.t his.cybersource .com.auwrote:

And how do you think this is different from any other publication? That
Python Papers is under a CC licence is a red-herring.

Well, the CC license is viral. According to the CC explanation of the
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license I am free to create a
derivative work, but only if I then release that work under an
identical license. When I look at the Python Cookbook, it doesn't
seem to encumber derived works the same way. Instead, the Python
Cookbook page says "Except where otherwise noted, recipes in the
Python Cookbook are published under the Python license." The Python
license is extraordinarily broad in what I'm allowed to do with it,
including reusing code in a commercial project.

Again, how is this different from any other publication? Unless you only
read public domain publications, anything you read is copyrighted, and
your arguments apply just as much -- perhaps more so -- depending on the
licence of that publication.

Yes, of course. Thus, I have to avoid using code out of any
publication with a viral non-commercial license if there's any chance
my code will be sold commercially. For the same reason, I won't take
code from a GPL'd product and reuse it in a commercial project without
getting a commercial license from the copyright holder.

By the way, I wasn't really trying to complain about the Python
Paper's choice of license. I just wanted to give my perspective on
why the licensing terms make it unsuitable for me. The copyright
holders are welcome to release their work under any terms they are
comfortable with.

--
Jerry

--
Jerry

[Fuzzyman]

Re: The Python Papers Edition One


Fredrik Lundh wrote:

Tennessee Leeuwenburg wrote:
>

If anyone has any good ideas for how to cope as a publisher with these
difficulties, I'm all ears.

>
has any of the format zealots posting to this thread actually
volunteered to produce any material for your publication? if not, I
suggest ignoring them. any bozo with a keyboard can contribute stop
energy to a project, but at the end, it's always the people *doing*
things that matters.
>

+1

You guys are doing a great job and the CC license is fine for free
works like the Python Journal

Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml

</F>