Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

gizmo_mathboy (782)

  reversethis-{moc ... } {yobhtamomzig}

aerospace engineer by education, all-around walking cesspool of knowledge by nature, and professional grade slacker by choice. Sysadmin at a major midwestern university.
Sunday June 29, 2008
09:19 PM

shlomi fish, chromatic and my wish

[ #36815 ]

chromatic's comment regarding something shlomi fish wrote started an interesting discussion.

While I don't like the idea of forcing an author to open source their books, I really do dig having digital copies available when they are offered.

I have almost every CD Bookshelf O'Reilly ever published. I even owned most of the books in them (well mostly the Perl and Web stuff). It is handy to have searchable text for a good chunk of my Perl library no matter where I roam, online or not.

That's all I would like to say. Digital copies of books rock.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Crud! My original response got eaten by my browser, after I accidently pressed a bookmark. Typing a different one:

    I never claimed that an author should be forced to "open-source" his work. For example, the CC-by-nc-nd licence is anything but open-content, but is still a valid and acceptable copyright licence, that permits non-commercial redistribution of works under it (and other digital and tangible fair use). In my older article [] I made the claim that it should be illegal for anyone to prevent non-comme

    • I would agree that making available != open sourcing but I would lean towards it being a moral decision by the author but not a Kantian Moral Imperative.

      I think making a text available is very nice thing an author can do for the text and the audience.

      • OK, based on what Wikipedia says about "Kantian Moral Imperatives" [] , I think I understand what you mean. I never claimed that an originator of an artwork must make it available online for free distribution. He may also try to prevent people from doing so by using copyrights protection (which I find undesirable and bad, but not unethical) or by not providing an electronic copy.

        However, what he must not do is try to harass the people who redistribute it non-commercially by using such measures as DMCA taked