Mailing List Archive

I think commercial publishing would be okay as long as it's nonexclusive;
there should be multiple commercial distributors like with Linux.
Similarly, as someone who works for a commercial web site, I wouldn't be
adverse to mirror sites running ads as long as it's nonexclusive and
others can put up mirror sites for free.

Perhaps this is naive, but my guess is that if there's true competition,
nobody's going to make a whole lot of money from publishing a book you can
get elsewhere for less. But does anyone know what happens with other
books in the public domain?

In any case, we don't need to decide this right away - we could distribute
under a more restrictive license and ask people to write to us about
commercial distribution.

_____________________________________________________________________
Brian Slesinsky www.wired.com/staff/bslesins

One issue is that people may not _know_ they are just buying something
which is already freely available. If nothing else, something in the
license about making exactly what it is people are buying clear is
necessary.

I think it is a good thing if it were available in printed form; whatever
is charged for it, it is probably going to be cheaper and nicer then
trying to print it yourself.

One option is to contract with a publisher for them to publish it and
provide some form of royalties to the Apache Group. However, that may be
legally troublesome right now since the Apache Group doesn't exist.

I agree, not something that has to be decided right away, but certainly an
issue to keep in mind.

Hey, I'll be happy if we end up with something that is good enough that
people want to publish it. <g>

In making the comparison with Linux, I think you will find that a good bit
of the Linux documentation is restricted from being published and there
are agreements between the authors and various publishers for making
published copies available. But that is just based on a vague
recollection from years ago... may have no truth in it.

On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Brian Slesinsky wrote:

>
> I think commercial publishing would be okay as long as it's nonexclusive;
> there should be multiple commercial distributors like with Linux.
> Similarly, as someone who works for a commercial web site, I wouldn't be
> adverse to mirror sites running ads as long as it's nonexclusive and
> others can put up mirror sites for free.
>
> Perhaps this is naive, but my guess is that if there's true competition,
> nobody's going to make a whole lot of money from publishing a book you can
> get elsewhere for less. But does anyone know what happens with other
> books in the public domain?
>
> In any case, we don't need to decide this right away - we could distribute
> under a more restrictive license and ask people to write to us about
> commercial distribution.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Brian Slesinsky www.wired.com/staff/bslesins
>

So this brings up some issues. The SH docs right now include
some text from the apache docs, but most of it is a rewrite. If you
restrict the new docs for a commercial use then does commercial
documentation have to be a clean room effort?

> No better way to screw up discussions than to mention licensing. I don't
> think the code license is appropriate for high quality documentation. Our
> current manual, while extensive, is not "book ready". But it's possible
> that this project would produce something which is book ready. We do not
> want someone to be able to print it and reap profits off our work...
> unlike software which is high overhead (nobody would buy from a
> fly-by-night, they look for support, etc.), books don't usually come with
> support contracts.
>
> Just food for thought. The documentation must be free, but it could have
> commercial restrictions added to it.
>
> Dean
>
>


--
Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770
President FAX: 510-986-8777
C2Net
http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net

Well my only concern is fly-by-nights trying to make a quick buck. I have
no problem with Stronghold incorporating some of the material.

Dean

On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, sameer wrote:

> So this brings up some issues. The SH docs right now include
> some text from the apache docs, but most of it is a rewrite. If you
> restrict the new docs for a commercial use then does commercial
> documentation have to be a clean room effort?
>
> > No better way to screw up discussions than to mention licensing. I don't
> > think the code license is appropriate for high quality documentation. Our
> > current manual, while extensive, is not "book ready". But it's possible
> > that this project would produce something which is book ready. We do not
> > want someone to be able to print it and reap profits off our work...
> > unlike software which is high overhead (nobody would buy from a
> > fly-by-night, they look for support, etc.), books don't usually come with
> > support contracts.
> >
> > Just food for thought. The documentation must be free, but it could have
> > commercial restrictions added to it.
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770
> President FAX: 510-986-8777
> C2Net
> http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net
>

On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> Well my only concern is fly-by-nights trying to make a quick buck. I have
> no problem with Stronghold incorporating some of the material.

Nor do I. I do have one concern about putting a license on the docs more
restrictive than the Apache license itself: Are these docs going to be
distributed with the Apache distribution itself? Currently, we do;
/htdocs/manual/ contains the complete set of Apache reference and how-to
documentation (which is somewhat lacking).

If we decide to make it seperate, only available from www.apache.org,
that's fine, but if we keep including docs with Apache, I'd perfer that
they keep under the Apache license (or a less restrictive one), so that
the entire Apache package can be redistrbuted under the terms of the
Apache license.

That being said, I don't plan to get too involved with documentation,
except maybe here and there. Certainly I'm very interested in making sure
the Apache 2.0 API (whenever it comes) is well-documented.

-- Alexei Kosut <akosut@organic.com>

That would be the most restrictive license I could probably support (ie.
I could go for something that was at most that restrictive), but I won't
be writing much...

I think the idea behind the license should be that commercial activities
aren't bad but that some people try to rip you off. I wouldn't worry
about details right now.

On Sat, 9 Aug 1997, sameer wrote:

> A license should be worded 'Please apply for permission to use
> in a commercial app' then?
> THat seems reaosnable to add. COmments from the rest?
>
> > Well my only concern is fly-by-nights trying to make a quick buck. I have
> > no problem with Stronghold incorporating some of the material.
> >
> > Dean
> >
> > On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, sameer wrote:
> >
> > > So this brings up some issues. The SH docs right now include
> > > some text from the apache docs, but most of it is a rewrite. If you
> > > restrict the new docs for a commercial use then does commercial
> > > documentation have to be a clean room effort?
> > >
> > > > No better way to screw up discussions than to mention licensing. I don't
> > > > think the code license is appropriate for high quality documentation. Our
> > > > current manual, while extensive, is not "book ready". But it's possible
> > > > that this project would produce something which is book ready. We do not
> > > > want someone to be able to print it and reap profits off our work...
> > > > unlike software which is high overhead (nobody would buy from a
> > > > fly-by-night, they look for support, etc.), books don't usually come with
> > > > support contracts.
> > > >
> > > > Just food for thought. The documentation must be free, but it could have
> > > > commercial restrictions added to it.
> > > >
> > > > Dean
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770
> > > President FAX: 510-986-8777
> > > C2Net
> > > http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770
> President FAX: 510-986-8777
> C2Net
> http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net
>

A license should be worded 'Please apply for permission to use
in a commercial app' then?
THat seems reaosnable to add. COmments from the rest?

> Well my only concern is fly-by-nights trying to make a quick buck. I have
> no problem with Stronghold incorporating some of the material.
>
> Dean
>
> On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, sameer wrote:
>
> > So this brings up some issues. The SH docs right now include
> > some text from the apache docs, but most of it is a rewrite. If you
> > restrict the new docs for a commercial use then does commercial
> > documentation have to be a clean room effort?
> >
> > > No better way to screw up discussions than to mention licensing. I don't
> > > think the code license is appropriate for high quality documentation. Our
> > > current manual, while extensive, is not "book ready". But it's possible
> > > that this project would produce something which is book ready. We do not
> > > want someone to be able to print it and reap profits off our work...
> > > unlike software which is high overhead (nobody would buy from a
> > > fly-by-night, they look for support, etc.), books don't usually come with
> > > support contracts.
> > >
> > > Just food for thought. The documentation must be free, but it could have
> > > commercial restrictions added to it.
> > >
> > > Dean
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770
> > President FAX: 510-986-8777
> > C2Net
> > http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net
> >
>


--
Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770
President FAX: 510-986-8777
C2Net
http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net

What about a license for the docs which followed the Apache source code
license, but required approval to distribute for profit in another media
(i.e., paper)?

Brian


--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
"Why not?" - TL brian@organic.com - hyperreal.org - apache.org