The Python Papers Edition One

[tleeuwenburg at gmail.com]

> 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)