Daniel de Kok wrote:


> Though, I do agree that the GPL is a bit awkward for books, because it
> constantly refers to "program", "source code", and "object code".

Bingo. Even a first year law student would tell you that any half-way sober
judge would throw out of court a case based on a BOOK (which is NOT a
program, source code, or object code by ANYONE'S definition) trying to use
the GPL as the basis for allowing a publisher to print and sell it. I fail
to see where the GPL as currently written applies to books in lieu of US
copyright law. And I don't know of where the GPL has withstood a legal
challenge.


> Slackware Linux Inc. is obligated to include the GPL license, and the GPL
> license allows you, or anyone else to redistribute it.

I agree with you when it comes to the program code.

> The same thing
> applies to the PDF, HTML, etc. files you can download from the Slack Book
> site.

Sorry, I don't believe that you or anyone else has the right to copy or
publish this book.... until you can get a court of standing to rule that
books and other IP that fall under the US copyright statues are 'part' of
the GPL and subject to its terms and not copyright law.

If P.V. wants to allow others to publish the book the procedure is for him
to place it in the public domain, not rely on the GPL... which does not
apply to books or other copyrightable material in lieu of copyright law.

While I'm not a licensed lawyer, I know a fair amount about publishing and
IP law. But perhaps there are some cases out there that have been decided
that have not crossed my desk.

Al C.

On 2005-06-13, Daniel de Kok <daniel@sugaree.localnet> wrote:
>
> Slackware Linux Inc. is obligated to include the GPL license, and the GPL
> license allows you, or anyone else to redistribute it. The same thing
> applies to the PDF, HTML, etc. files you can download from the Slack Book
> site.
>
> -- Daniel

Just as an aside and out of curiosity, the RUTE "book" also uses the GPL but
also contains an author restraint on copying the "book" in hard copy for
distribution and the work cannot be modified except to convert to PDF, HTML
etc....

ken

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Daniel de Kok dared to utter,
> Slackware Linux Inc. is obligated to include the GPL license, and the GPL
> license allows you, or anyone else to redistribute it. The same thing
> applies to the PDF, HTML, etc. files you can download from the Slack Book
> site.

Daniel, don't bother giving his FUD another moment of your time.
Everyone here understands the terms of the GPL, including Al. He
simply wishes to stir up trouble in the Slackware camp and create this
huge to-do over *gasp* a publisher saying something bad about the book
I helped edit, all because he has some twisted personal vendetta
against me.

I can't help it if people appreciate me and despise Al; that's not my
fault. Of course, I'm sure the fact that some ignorant hillbilly from
the Jaw-Juh swamps has stepped on his "turf" by being involved somewhat
in a printed book and that said book will likely be far more popular
than anything Al ever publishes has stuck in his craw.

Words of wisdom for Al: Act respectable and people will respect you.
That means not stirring up trouble just to aggrivate people and hear
yourself speak. Learn that other people have an often vastly different
view of the world than you do. Oh yeah, he who dies with the most toys
still dies; life ain't about bragging rights or feeding your own silly
ego. Success isn't measured in how many people know you or take you out
to lunch, or how many dollars you make, or how many people you employ,
or how much you know. Success in life is judged by how many people you
help and to what extent you help them.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCrjnHzLTO1iU1uO4RAqcoAJ0W60u27FCDzOf7bNnlzX M+rESrqACfRlRD
pc2UGLaN4xSxwQPCCsImy4E=
=/2cb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

No_One wrote:

> Just as an aside and out of curiosity, the RUTE "book" also uses the GPL
> but also contains an author restraint on copying the "book" in hard copy
> for distribution and the work cannot be modified except to convert to PDF,
> HTML etc....
>
> ken

Are you sure the RUTE book is licensed under the GPL? Really? The book
inludes the GPL in an appendix, but I don't see anywhere that the work is
licensed under the GPL. In fact they call the document found at
http://www.icon.co.za/~psheer/book/copying.html.gz a license, and it is
most definitely not the GPL.

The documents belonging to (copyright owned by) the FSF are generally
licensed under the GNU FDL, which generally provides the same freedoms and
protections as the GPL. The documents are frequently published in paper
form by O'Reilly, and, in those cases, O'Reilly owns the rights to their
printed version. However, O'Reilly is not always the sole publisher of the
work, as the FDL grants the right to print and distribute to
anyone/everyone.

--
Old Man

+Alan Hicks+ wrote:

> He
> simply wishes to stir up trouble in the Slackware camp and create this
> huge to-do over gasp a publisher saying something bad about the book
> I helped edit, all because he has some twisted personal vendetta
> against me.

Hicks, you must be the most ignorant man on the planet. Not once in this
thread (or any other) have I commented on the quality of the book or your
'authorship'. But I will now.

I read it and I think it was very well done.... an excellent piece of work.
I will recommend it to anyone wanting to learn about Linux in general and
Slackware in particular. I would have added some topics but that would have
only made the book more complete, not any better. If you remember I sent
you a chapter that I wrote...

http://www.adams-blake.com/media/named-How-To.txt

but you rejected it. You know and I know that it wasn't for the content, it
was because of your petty antipathy toward me. But it was YOUR work and I
didn't complain... to you in private or here in public. I'm a pro. I
accepted your judgement (such as it was) without comment.

You should be very proud of the work you and your associates did. It's a
very excellent piece of research and I have no doubt that it would sell
well if published in hard-copy. If P.V. came to us and offered our company
exclusive trade rights (web-stores, bookstores, computer stores, Costco,
PXs, etc.), we'd invest the money (takes about $20,000 to do it right) and
put it out there.

Only on this perverted NG can a simple discussion of the GPL vs. US
copyright law become a pissing contest.

Hicks, go feed one of your pigs or something and stay the hell out of
threads that are way beyond your comprehension and we will all learn from
each other get along much better.

Al C.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:20:59 +0000, Al. C wrote:

> Hicks, you must be the most ignorant man on the planet. Not once in this

Yep, I absolutely *KNEW* that any thread Al C is involved in would turn in
to this. For the record, Al C here, right above, started the
mud-slinging. Of course we all know that he intended to do that, right
from the very start of the thread. This was never about the "Book" or the
GPL, it was simply a vehicle for Al C to start another flamefest. For the
record, right here it was started, by Al C.

> Only on this perverted NG can a simple discussion of the GPL vs. US
> copyright law become a pissing contest.

No, only in a conversation in which you are a participant can this happen.
In fact, the probability of that happening is exactly 100%.
Congratulations, Al, you've done it again. You must be so proud of
yourself.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:57:01 +0000, Al. C wrote:

> While I'm not a licensed lawyer, I know a fair amount about publishing and
> IP law. But perhaps there are some cases out there that have been decided
> that have not crossed my desk.

Ya think so, Al? You think there are "some cases" of litigation that
don't cross your desk? Really? I mean, you are very important, right?
Everything doesn't have to be cleared by you?

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Al. C wrote:

> Bingo. Even a first year law student would tell you that any half-way
> sober judge would throw out of court a case based on a BOOK (which is NOT
> a program, source code, or object code by ANYONE'S definition) trying to
> use the GPL as the basis for allowing a publisher to print and sell it. I
> fail to see where the GPL as currently written applies to books in lieu of
> US copyright law. And I don't know of where the GPL has withstood a legal
> challenge.

That's where Creative Commons appliesD

Niki Kovacs
--
I'm not as think as you stoned I am.

Dan C wrote:


> No, only in a conversation in which you are a participant can this happen.
> In fact, the probability of that happening is exactly 100%.
> Congratulations, Al, you've done it again. You must be so proud of
> yourself.
>

You got played again, Dan.

Al C.

On 2005-06-13, Al. C <no_spam_ac3_takeout@adams-blake.nospam.com> wrote:

> copyright law. And I don't know of where the GPL has withstood a legal
> challenge.

Well, do you know of where the GPL has failed to withstand a legal
challenge?

nb