From: Chad Perrin <code@...>
Date: 2011-09-08T00:59:09+09:00
Subject: Re: posts on Unix systems programming

--eheScQNz3K90DVRs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:00:26AM +0900, Eric Wong wrote:
>
> I would like to do a series of mailing list posts on the subject of Unix
> systems programming in Ruby.  I only intend to cover standardized,
> POSIX-compliant features of the standard Ruby distribution.  No
> extensions or Linux-only parts.

I think this would be great, and if it ends up being on a separate,
dedicated mailing list (as some people have requested), I hope we'll be
informed enough in advance so that nobody misses anything (especially
me).


>=20
> Most people would start a blog/wiki, but I dislike dealing with _any_
> browsers/formatting/layout/presentation, so absolutely no
> markup/markdown/troff/textile if I'm to do this.  I'm interested in
> reader feedback and contributions; and (plain-text, minimally quoted)
> email is great for that.  I will not use anything other than plain-text
> email to interact with readers/editors/contributors.

I think email is an excellent interface for something like this.


>=20
> All of my posts will be licensed under the GPLv3, but code examples will
> be all-permissive and reusable freely without attribution.

Do you plan to use something like the Creative Commons 0 waiver or the
GNU All-Permissive License to explictly establish this permissive
distribution permission?


>=20
> If anybody wants to take mailing list posts and make a website/wiki or
> even publish a book so more people can read it, please do so!  The
> GPLv3 protects readers who circumvent DRM if distributed in proprietary
> formats.  Editorial help to fix/correct things will be greatly
> appreciated.

GPLv3 provides essentially the same legal protection for circumventing
DRM that (almost) any other open source license provides, as far as I'm
aware.  What GPLv3 does differently is require distribution of the
complete mechanism for the DRM in usable/source form, including keys, as
I understand it.  In some respects, Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC-BY, the most permissive Creative Commons license apart from public
domain statements and waivers of copyright protections) is actually more
protective against DRM by simply disallowing "any effective technological
measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work
from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms
of the License."

Of course, I think that any attempt to address DRM for something like
this is unnecessary licensing complexity, but if you feel otherwise I
think these considerations are worth . . . considering.  In addition, the
GPLv3 deals with a lot of complexity that does not really apply to
non-code content, which some might consider reasons to use a license more
appropriate for documentation per se, or that does not make assumptions
about the form of the materials distributed.

standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this should not be taken as
legal advice, blah blah blah, please don't sue me.


>=20
> All I want from this is more people to understand Unix systems
> programming (and to avoid all HTML/browsers/forms while doing it).

I believe that is a noble goal.  Thank you for making this effort.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

--eheScQNz3K90DVRs
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk5nkF8ACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKW9oACeML5JcNXkW0DaBcboCXIDC7uO
0s8AoIH6KPoYU/slrgOOkJ4l0Gww6M1N
=vKLM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--eheScQNz3K90DVRs--