The Python Papers Edition One

[tleeuwenburg at gmail.com]

Ben Finney wrote:
> "tleeuwenburg at gmail.com" <tleeuwenburg at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > 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)