From schultzk at uni-trier.de Wed Dec 1 00:23:44 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:23:44 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <8ade4.5213a666.3a26b799@aol.com> References: <8ade4.5213a666.3a26b799@aol.com> Message-ID: <0E17CCBD-CD8D-4AC3-8206-ACA60A3BF280@uni-trier.de> Hi All, I took the time to read the POST article. Newby says its legal!!????? Well, according to the small print: [3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the net profits you derive calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are payable to "Project Gutenberg Association/Carnegie-Mellon University" within the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent periodic) tax return. O.K. Amazon is not selling on the PG trademark, As it is evident that they are using PG material they should be paying PG something. Yes, proving this legally is difficult and probably costly. But, Newby is absolutely wrong it is not legeal!! To avoid legal battles, why ask amazon to donate couple of thousands to PG. It is peanuts to them and alot to PG! regards Keith. Am 30.11.2010 um 21:24 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > oh my goodness, where have you been, al? this sure ain't news. > > and newby wonders if it's "ethical". spare me the deliberations. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparr0 at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 00:33:02 2010 From: sparr0 at gmail.com (Sparr) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 03:33:02 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <0E17CCBD-CD8D-4AC3-8206-ACA60A3BF280@uni-trier.de> References: <8ade4.5213a666.3a26b799@aol.com> <0E17CCBD-CD8D-4AC3-8206-ACA60A3BF280@uni-trier.de> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > Hi All, > I took the time to read the POST article. > Newby says its legal!!????? > Well, according to the small print: > [3]? Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the Keith, that whole license doesn't apply if they strip out the trademarks. It even says so on the PG website. From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Dec 1 00:35:50 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 03:35:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: the final report on a 5-year-long bet Message-ID: <1d8868.7449dfb4.3a2762e6@aol.com> worldcat knows most all the p-books, plus it can tell you where to find 'em. that doesn't mean brewster will have the will or the funding to scan them. which means we will need to pin our best hopes on google, a thought that becomes less comforting all the time. and that, in a nutshell, is the problem. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Dec 1 00:43:51 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 03:43:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books Message-ID: <1d89ea.7d457376.3a2764c7@aol.com> oh keith, where have _you_ been? _of_course_ it's legal. perfectly so. plus it is _far_ from being unethical. (well, some of these outfits are trying to shut down access to free copies because they claim copyright on their own version, and that indeed falls on the unethical side, but that's some whole other kettle of fish.) educate yourself fully before you post, ok? -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From walter.van.holst at xs4all.nl Wed Dec 1 09:31:54 2010 From: walter.van.holst at xs4all.nl (Walter van Holst) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:31:54 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <0E17CCBD-CD8D-4AC3-8206-ACA60A3BF280@uni-trier.de> References: <8ade4.5213a666.3a26b799@aol.com> <0E17CCBD-CD8D-4AC3-8206-ACA60A3BF280@uni-trier.de> Message-ID: <4CF6868A.1010104@xs4all.nl> On 12/1/10 9:23 AM, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > Yes, proving this legally is difficult and probably costly. > But, Newby is absolutely wrong it is not legeal!! > > To avoid legal battles, why ask amazon to donate couple > of thousands to PG. It is peanuts to them and alot to PG! PG books tend to be in the public domain. PG doesn't appropriate anything. Amazon making money from PG books is neither illegal, nor immoral. It only proves that ease of access and a nice representation are valued over just having the content available in archaic ASCII-formats. Regards, Walter From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Dec 1 12:30:11 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:30:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books Message-ID: <550a7.5c59e231.3a280a53@aol.com> the washington post article said: > Even though it?s not illegal, Project Gutenberg > Literary Archive Foundation chief executive Greg Newby > finds the practice unethical. He would like to see Amazon > offer Project Gutenberg texts at no cost and DRM-free. if greg _really_ wants that, he could make it happen, easily, by setting up project gutenberg as a publisher who distributes its e-books through amazon, because publishers set the price, and can turn off amazon d.r.m. and until p.g. does that, other rogue re-publishers will continue to take advantage of the door p.g. left open... *** here's someone who took jim's "magic catalog" and turned it into a for-sale e-book, albeit for just $.99... > http://www.amazon.com/Download-Gutenberg-CATALOG-download-ebook/dp/B004BDOWPQ there are also versions for feedbooks and mobileread. *** and even though i thought the tone was a bit off, the point behind the article was a rather good one, in the sense that kindle owners do need to be told -- directly, and perhaps often -- they can populate their machines with content not bought from amazon. *** walter said: > It only proves that ease of access > and a nice representation are valued > over just having the content available that's right, as far as it goes, just as long as we recognize the caveat that many of these rogue re-publishers do _not_ create books that have "a nice representation". they just take whatever was there, with absolutely no concern at all for the quality of the product. *** walter said: > It only proves that ease of access > and a nice representation are > valued over just having the content > available in archaic ASCII-formats. kudos to walter for trying to smuggle in a political point. but ascii is _not_ "archaic". it's the 128 lower bits of utf-8. and utf-16. and all the other various older encodings too. walter was trying to make you think something like .html is superior. i will agree that an .html book _does_ look nice, at least if you are viewing it with a browser or some other piece of software that understands how to render that .html. (otherwise, an .html-book is _painful_ to read, lacking that.) but it's important to remember that that .html itself is _also_ comprised mainly of the lower 128 bits that walter claims are "archaic". so obviously he's not telling us the _whole_ truth... it's also tremendously meaningful and relevant and important to understand that -- if you route the p.g, ascii-format through a viewer-program that understands how to render that format -- you will _also_ get a book that looks nice. and one that can have just as much power -- or even more -- than an .html book has... indeed, the iphone app "eucalyptus" takes exactly that approach. and its output looks just as good as an .html-book or an .epub... so it's simply not true -- at all -- that ascii is "archaic", no sir. it _is_ unfortunate that project gutenberg has never seen fit to distribute a viewer-program that makes its plain-text format look nice and be powerful. but that's not the fault of the format. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hart at pglaf.org Wed Dec 1 13:49:33 2010 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:49:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Amazon Singled Out? Message-ID: So does Barnes & Noble http://goo.gl/yH6s1 From schultzk at uni-trier.de Wed Dec 1 14:43:23 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 23:43:23 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <1d89ea.7d457376.3a2764c7@aol.com> References: <1d89ea.7d457376.3a2764c7@aol.com> Message-ID: <8ED448A4-0770-461D-A78F-C95B7494BD09@uni-trier.de> Am 01.12.2010 um 09:43 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > oh keith, where have _you_ been? > > _of_course_ it's legal. perfectly so. Really, so then it is perfectly light to take a book rip out the copyright notice and post the book on the web for free. Sure PG is not into making money, they want books be available for free. PG gives books away for free. No damage done, Yet, ... > > plus it is _far_ from being unethical. > > (well, some of these outfits are trying to > shut down access to free copies because > they claim copyright on their own version, > and that indeed falls on the unethical side, > but that's some whole other kettle of fish.) > > educate yourself fully before you post, ok? Duhh, what that I did read the fine print before posting!! regards Keith. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From azkar0 at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 14:52:54 2010 From: azkar0 at gmail.com (Scott Olson) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:52:54 -0700 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <8ED448A4-0770-461D-A78F-C95B7494BD09@uni-trier.de> References: <1d89ea.7d457376.3a2764c7@aol.com> <8ED448A4-0770-461D-A78F-C95B7494BD09@uni-trier.de> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > > Really, so then it is perfectly light to take a book rip out > the copyright notice and post the book on the web for free. > PG deals almost entirely with books in the Public Domain. There is no copyright to infringe upon. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Dec 1 15:27:50 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 18:27:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books Message-ID: <61224.770a9b27.3a2833f6@aol.com> keith said: > Really, so then it is perfectly light to take a book rip out > the copyright notice and post the book on the web for free. you seem to be totally confused. the point of the public-domain is that copyright protection has run its course. so nobody owns a public-domain book. including project gutenberg. the copyright has _elapsed_... a book which is still under copyright is completely different. > Duhh, what that I did read the fine print before posting!! educate yourself _fully_ by reading _all_ of the fine-print... don't just pick-and-choose whatever fits your fancy today. besides, that fine print has been discussed countless times. if you've just gotten around to reading it, you're uninformed. *** scott said: > PG deals almost entirely with books in the Public Domain. > There is no copyright to infringe upon. well, actually, there _are_ some copyrighted books in p.g. so if you really want to clamp down on the rogue resellers, see if they've improperly offered those copyrighted works... *** michael said: > So does Barnes & Noble sigh. yes, that's true, and -- as quoted back in the original article in the washington post -- greg did acknowledge that, but added that amazon is one of the worst offenders, because they sell the most books. it's important to note that neither amazon nor barnes&noble are the rogue parties here. they are merely _selling_ e-books being provided to them by the real rogues -- rogue publishers. yes, the booksellers take a cut, and thus they do profit, a bit, but they also suffer more when the public turns bitter on them, so i'm sure they don't particularly _like_ this thorny situation... but -- to repeat it once again, in the hope that it sinks in -- p.g. is responsible for this problem, by not asserting itself as an e-book publisher within the major bookselling arenas. the p.g. name would outsell all of the little rogue publishers, chasing them from scene simply by taking away their _profit_, which is the _only_ reason these (perfectly legal) scum exist... you have no legal authority to challenge them, but nonetheless, you do have the market power to chase them away completely... you could even charge a very low fee -- merely to cover costs -- but _also_ inform people that a free version is always available at your own website. this might require getting some kind of exception from the standard policies of the various booksites -- or it might not, it's not clear from their terms of service -- but if you make a stink, they would _have_to_ accommodate you, because none of them can take the p.r. hit from offending p.g. so here's the question: do you believe in free e-books enough to _fight_ for them? if so, then prepare to crawl into the ring, boys... -bowerbird p.s. this leveraging of public opinion is why, even though i disagree with the thrust of the original article, i'm glad that it was written, because it made people discuss the situation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Wed Dec 1 15:37:36 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 00:37:36 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: References: <1d89ea.7d457376.3a2764c7@aol.com> <8ED448A4-0770-461D-A78F-C95B7494BD09@uni-trier.de> Message-ID: <185BC55C-C612-4705-8A58-35DF76512C36@uni-trier.de> Am 01.12.2010 um 23:52 schrieb Scott Olson: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > > Really, so then it is perfectly light to take a book rip out > the copyright notice and post the book on the web for free. > > PG deals almost entirely with books in the Public Domain. There is no copyright to infringe upon. I believe most do not get the point. Works of Shakespeare are out of copyright. If I produce a book containing his Works and sell it. My book gains copyright! Meaning that one can use my book for producing other books based on my content. Furthermore, being in the public domain and having copyright and two different things. We have been "there and back again"!! regards Keith. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gbnewby at pglaf.org Wed Dec 1 15:45:56 2010 From: gbnewby at pglaf.org (Greg Newby) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:45:56 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <61224.770a9b27.3a2833f6@aol.com> References: <61224.770a9b27.3a2833f6@aol.com> Message-ID: <20101201234556.GA7174@pglaf.org> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 06:27:50PM -0500, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote: > .... > it's important to note that neither amazon nor barnes&noble > are the rogue parties here. they are merely _selling_ e-books > being provided to them by the real rogues -- rogue publishers. > yes, the booksellers take a cut, and thus they do profit, a bit, > but they also suffer more when the public turns bitter on them, > so i'm sure they don't particularly _like_ this thorny situation... Incorrect, at least in the case of the book the WashPost article was about. The imprint publisher is Amazon Digital Press. I'm quite certain this is simply Amazon Inc. THEY are the publisher. When interviewed for the article, their PR rep wanted to hide behind the fact that they hired someone or otherwise outsourced some of the harvesting. This is a partial excuse for making a mistake, but does not remove responsibility. It's like a newspaper hiring a freelancer to write an article: it's contracted work for hire. There is no question about who is responsible: it's the people who specified and paid for the work. (We're only speculating that Amazon outsourced this particular book. Who knows how it got onto their site? All we know from primary evidence, the Amazon sales/catalog page, is who the publisher is: Amazon.) Amazon does have facilities for rogues (or any other individual or business) to sell through their site. [Yes, this is something I'm looking into again (and something I encouraged people to volunteer to do previously -- the fact that I don't have time to do it myself doesn't mean I'm against it. To the contrary.)] But the book in question is clearly published by Amazon. -- Greg From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Dec 1 16:38:54 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 19:38:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books Message-ID: <518d6.367f345e.3a28449e@aol.com> greg said: > Incorrect, at least in the case of > the book the WashPost article was about. > The imprint publisher is Amazon Digital Press.? > I'm quite certain this is simply Amazon Inc.? > THEY are the publisher. well, yes, i did see that. and i wondered about it. i also checked the 3 other books in the article, and two of them had different publishers listed. so it's not quite as cut-and-dried as we'd like... and it's not as if amazon has to be disqualified from anybody-can-reprint-the-public-domain. heck, google's gonna be going into the business of renting out their library in a _big-time_ way... > This is a partial excuse for making a mistake, > but does not remove responsibility. you're forgetting that there is no crime here, so "mistake" and "responsibility" words don't apply. p.g. left the door wide open, and people are now going through it. what did you expect 'em to do? > I encouraged people to volunteer to do previously > -- the fact that I don't have time to do it myself > doesn't mean I'm against it well then, i must've missed that "encouragement". can you point us to archives where we can find it? i mean, i find it quite easy to believe that you are "not against it". but i trust that you'll understand that stance alone isn't gonna make much happen. i mean, seriously, back when _i_ was contemplating doing projects like this, my full intention then was to become one of the rogue publishers and charge money and use the proceeds to buy health insurance for michael hart, since i assume he ain't got much... i decided against it because it seemed that he didn't like me all that much, but also because i knew that someone would paint me as evil for charging a fee... i just didn't believe it would be someone who is as fully conversant with copyright law as greg newby... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Dec 1 17:00:49 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 20:00:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books Message-ID: <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> keith said: > I believe most do not get the point. no, it's you who does not get the point. seriously. > Works of Shakespeare are out of copyright. > If I produce a book containing his Works and sell it. > My book gains copyright! no, your book does _not_ gain copyright. at least not in the united states, which is where p.g. is located, so that's the set of laws which p.g. is obligated to follow, eh? > Meaning that one can use my book for > producing other books based on my content. i think you probably left out a "not" in that sentence. if your reprinting of shakespeare contained content that was _your_ work -- unique to _your_ edition -- then _that_ part of the book is under your copyright. for instance, you might have composed your own preface to the book, over which you'd own copyright. nobody could use that preface without your consent. but bill's work is still squarely in the public-domain, and can be used -- or sold! -- by anyone else at all. > Furthermore, being in the public domain and > having copyright and two different things. and you're completely wrong again on this, keith. if the period of copyright has elapsed on a work, it's public-domain; one is the obverse of the other. (a work can also be placed into the public-domain, in advance of elapsing its copyright period, but only by the official _owner_ of the copyright for that work.) (and we might also have the situation coming up soon where the court deciding the google book settlement decides to _shift_ copyright on _orphaned_works_ to the entity that's formed to administer the settlement, which would overlay another complication on all this, but that's not something we need to worry about here.) again, things are a little bit different in germany, and that is probably what is confusing you here... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hart at pglaf.org Wed Dec 1 17:06:41 2010 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 17:06:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Shakespeare Re: Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> References: <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> Message-ID: Actually, bowerbird is incorrect, you COULD create a copyrightable edition of Shakespeare, just by collecting up what YOU think would be the best editions of each play, sonnet, poem, etc. if it should be a unique collection not currently under copyright. All Shakespeare's words, your choice of which ones. . . . From schultzk at uni-trier.de Wed Dec 1 23:19:13 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 08:19:13 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> References: <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> Message-ID: <3AAE79F2-AAC1-426C-8DEE-E8741054C558@uni-trier.de> Am 02.12.2010 um 02:00 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > keith said: > > I believe most do not get the point. > > no, it's you who does not get the point. seriously. > > > > Works of Shakespeare are out of copyright. > > If I produce a book containing his Works and sell it. > > My book gains copyright! > > no, your book does _not_ gain copyright. WHAT ???? Go out and buy a recently published and book of Shakespeare works and hold and behold a copyright notice! Oh, my gosh, they are copyrighting something that can not be copyrighted. The copyright is naturally, nor for the works of shakespeare, but on the book itsself. PG has rights to the text they produce and put on the web. You are telling me that in the Staes that if I state you can use what I put any in the public domain for FREE distribution and state that if it is commercially used that 20% is to go to me that no court will protect my rights and term of use! Poor America. Here in Germany it would be a piece of cake. No matter how poorly the terms were written, as long as it is evident that commercial use entices a fee. You talk alot of being uninformed, how about living in the real world! Wake people. By the way I give the right to cite this post. Though I could forbid it. regards Keith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Wed Dec 1 23:21:18 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 08:21:18 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Shakespeare Re: Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: References: <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> Message-ID: Thanx, finally, someone with knowledge. But, we should not blame BB for being uninformed can we ! ;-))) regards Keith. Am 02.12.2010 um 02:06 schrieb Michael S. Hart: > > Actually, bowerbird is incorrect, you COULD create a copyrightable > edition of Shakespeare, just by collecting up what YOU think would > be the best editions of each play, sonnet, poem, etc. if it should > be a unique collection not currently under copyright. > > All Shakespeare's words, your choice of which ones. . . . > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Dec 1 23:24:18 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 02:24:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books Message-ID: <65f22.5ecee909.3a28a3a1@aol.com> you're wrong, keith, and that's the way it is. now, i can't be bothered with you anymore... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Dec 1 23:30:48 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 02:30:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Shakespeare_Re=3A=A0_Re=3A_Amazon_charging_for?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_PG_books?= Message-ID: <660a4.70a30c8c.3a28a528@aol.com> michael said: > you COULD create a copyrightable edition of Shakespeare > just by collecting up what YOU think would be > the best editions of each play, sonnet, poem, etc. seriously? compilation copyright? no... seriously? just gotta pick at the scab, don't you?, can't let it heal. :+) considering how 180-degrees-wrong keith got things, even though he was merely talking about the _basics_, i thought it enough to point him in the right direction... you'll just confuse him all over again by bringing up compilation copyright. so please do not do that, ok? let him get used to crawling before you invite him to swim. > Actually, bowerbird is incorrect not really. you just introduced a different wrinkle is all... so why don't you explain to keith that he got it all wrong? -bowerbird p.s. but for those of you who would like to go swimming: > http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/compilation.htm > > The law identifies three distinct elements, > all of which must be met for a work > to qualify as a copyrightable compilation: > 1. the collection and assembly of pre-existing material, facts, or? data; > 2. the selection, coordination, or arrangement of those materials; and > 3. the creation, by virtue of the particular selection, > coordination, or arrangement of an original work of authorship. > Collection and assembling facts and information isn't enough. > Compilations, just as any other work, may only be copyrighted > if the originality requirement, ?an original work of authorship,? is met. and here's some more: > http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html > > A ?collective work? is a work, such as a periodical issue, > anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, > constituting separate and independent works in themselves, > are assembled into a collective whole. > > A ?compilation? is a work formed by the collection and > assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are > selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that > the resulting work as a whole constitutes > an original work of authorship. > The term ?compilation? includes collective works. ... > (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends > only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as > distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, > and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. > The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect > or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, > any copyright protection in the preexisting material. and more: > http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/obtaining.html#compilation *** but really, all you are doing here is confusing poor keith further. of course, all this cross-nationalism confusion is something that the corporations _love_ to take advantage of... anything that will make the situation more complicated serves their ulterior motives. so, again why don't you explain to keith that he got it all wrong? surely you don't want to foster this cross-nationalist confusion... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Thu Dec 2 00:36:47 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 09:36:47 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Shakespeare_Re=3A=A0_Re=3A_Amazon_charging_for?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_PG_books?= In-Reply-To: <660a4.70a30c8c.3a28a528@aol.com> References: <660a4.70a30c8c.3a28a528@aol.com> Message-ID: <503698A2-2809-41E1-9590-7F2CC66EB214@uni-trier.de> Hi BB, Read below your own words and you prove me right! Furthermore, Micheal did mention uniqueness. Do you realize how easy it is to add this or " an original work of authorship"! How naive can you get. I had thought you to be fairly intelligent, and you can fill in the blanks. I am not going to draw you a picture. I guess I expect to much of this world, and will just to have to let things float. Maybe my friends are right that I talk to far over the heads of most. But, I simply have do not the nerve to orate ten minutes what I can state in one sentence. regards Keith. Am 02.12.2010 um 08:30 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > michael said: > > you COULD create a copyrightable edition of Shakespeare > > just by collecting up what YOU think would be > > the best editions of each play, sonnet, poem, etc. > > seriously? compilation copyright? no... seriously? > > just gotta pick at the scab, don't you?, can't let it heal. :+) > > considering how 180-degrees-wrong keith got things, > even though he was merely talking about the _basics_, > i thought it enough to point him in the right direction... > > you'll just confuse him all over again by bringing up > compilation copyright. so please do not do that, ok? > > let him get used to crawling before you invite him to swim. > > > > Actually, bowerbird is incorrect > > not really. you just introduced a different wrinkle is all... > > so why don't you explain to keith that he got it all wrong? > > -bowerbird > > p.s. but for those of you who would like to go swimming: > > > http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/compilation.htm > > > > The law identifies three distinct elements, > > all of which must be met for a work > > to qualify as a copyrightable compilation: > > 1. the collection and assembly of pre-existing material, facts, or data; > > 2. the selection, coordination, or arrangement of those materials; and > > 3. the creation, by virtue of the particular selection, > > coordination, or arrangement of an original work of authorship. > > Collection and assembling facts and information isn't enough. > > Compilations, just as any other work, may only be copyrighted > > if the originality requirement, ?an original work of authorship,? is met. > > and here's some more: > > > http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html > > > > A ?collective work? is a work, such as a periodical issue, > > anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, > > constituting separate and independent works in themselves, > > are assembled into a collective whole. > > > > A ?compilation? is a work formed by the collection and > > assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are > > selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that > > the resulting work as a whole constitutes > > an original work of authorship. > > The term ?compilation? includes collective works. > ... > > (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends > > only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as > > distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, > > and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. > > The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect > > or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, > > any copyright protection in the preexisting material. > > and more: > > http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/obtaining.html#compilation > > *** > > but really, all you are doing here is confusing poor keith further. > > of course, all this cross-nationalism confusion is something that > the corporations _love_ to take advantage of... anything that will > make the situation more complicated serves their ulterior motives. > > so, again why don't you explain to keith that he got it all wrong? > surely you don't want to foster this cross-nationalist confusion... > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Dec 2 01:18:23 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 04:18:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Shakespeare_Re=3A=A0_Re=3A_Amazon_charging_for?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_PG_books?= Message-ID: compilation copyright doesn't apply to any of the books which were mentioned in that washington post article... neither does it apply if you simply repackage up a book, which is what we were talking about, what the issues are. it is most commonly applied to journals, anthologies, and other collections, and -- as reported -- must itself rise to attain the level of an original work of authorship. off the top of my head, the only p.g. thing that _might_ qualify for a compilation copyright is the one entry that was a combination of (almost?) all of the entries below it, and even that would be questionable because it doesn't contain the "selection" and "arrangement" elements that are 2 of the requirements for copyright on a compilation. (the bookshelves too, but nobody is talking about them.) you, keith, stated that copyright and public-domain are separate things, when in the u.s. they're direct opposites. and you said that if one reprints a public-domain book, it gains copyright status, which in the u.s. is plainly false. anyone, including you, can do the research and discover the truth of the matter, so there's no use in discussing it. if nobody here cares about you enough to make it clear to you that you are wrong about these things, then fine, there's no reason for me to care either. am i understood? -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcello at perathoner.de Thu Dec 2 03:36:52 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:36:52 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <3AAE79F2-AAC1-426C-8DEE-E8741054C558@uni-trier.de> References: <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> <3AAE79F2-AAC1-426C-8DEE-E8741054C558@uni-trier.de> Message-ID: <4CF784D4.8010102@perathoner.de> On 12/02/2010 08:19 AM, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > WHAT ???? Go out and buy a recently published and book of Shakespeare works > and hold and behold a copyright notice! Oh, my gosh, they are copyrighting something > that can not be copyrighted. All copyright laws that I'm aware of put heavy penalities on copyright infringement but none puts any penalty on false copyright claims. That's because in capitalism most laws are for protecting the big corporations against the small people. > The copyright is naturally, nor for the works of shakespeare, but on the book > itsself. > PG has rights to the text they produce and put on the web. > You are telling me that in the Staes that if I state you can use what I put any > in the public domain for > FREE distribution and state that if it is commercially used that 20% is to go to > me that no court > will protect my rights and term of use! Poor America. You have failed to understand the PG license. But that's not your fault. The license is useless and incomprehensible. The PG license *only* states that if you want to use the PG *trademark*, you have to fork out some of your earnings. PG never made a penny out of the license, it just annoys users, and should be scrapped for good. > Here in Germany it would be a piece of cake. No matter how poorly the terms were > written, as long > as it is evident that commercial use entices a fee. In Germany its the same as in the US. You don't get a new copyright for a reproduction of a public domain work. You get a copyright if you edit it *if* your editorial interventions show sufficient high creativity: "ausreichende Sch?pfungsh?he". Of course "ausreichende Sch?pfungsh?he" can be granted at the judges will, but no judge will grant you that just for marking up paragraphs and chapters. > You talk alot of being uninformed, how about living in the real world! Wake people. You are talking BS again. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From hart at pglaf.org Thu Dec 2 09:13:47 2010 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 09:13:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Shakespeare Re: Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: References: <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> Message-ID: I left out one detail, not only "not currently under copyright" but not having been copyrighted before, perhaps published before. I am not sure about all the details about previously published works that were not copyrighted, sorry. I am not a lawyer. . .this is NOT a legal opinion or legal advice. IANAL = I am not a lawyer. On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > Thanx, finally, someone with knowledge. > > But, we should not blame BB for being uninformed can we ! ;-))) > > regards > Keith. > > Am 02.12.2010 um 02:06 schrieb Michael S. Hart: > > > > > Actually, bowerbird is incorrect, you COULD create a copyrightable > > edition of Shakespeare, just by collecting up what YOU think would > > be the best editions of each play, sonnet, poem, etc. if it should > > be a unique collection not currently under copyright. > > > > All Shakespeare's words, your choice of which ones. . . . > > _______________________________________________ > > gutvol-d mailing list > > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Dec 2 12:43:04 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 15:43:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical Message-ID: <204f2.77f26a60.3a295ed7@aol.com> there's one sad fact that jumps out of the recent discussion. i would have expected -- and hoped, too, but _expected_ is really the correct word -- that project gutenberg would be the entity which most consistently and most strongly supports the right of the public to use the public-domain. and no matter how vigorous or broad that use might be, i would have thought project gutenberg would support it. so when i see one of the precious few "officials" from p.g. quoted in a major newspaper as questioning some use of public-domain books as "unethical", it makes me queasy. he's acting as if p.g. owns those books. it doesn't. the _public_ owns those books. the general public. and p.g. should be pointing that out to _everyone_. these rogue republishers should be hiding behind p.g. as their protective shield, just like the hate-speechers look to the a.c.l.u. to protect their freedom of speech... (and even that analogy is flawed, because hate speech is truly ugly, while these rogue republishers are just a minor bother at worst, or -- if you wanted to put a nice polish on them -- good examples of free speech.) so, when asked for his quote, newby should have said, "more power to 'em, that's what public-domain is for." as i have said before, i strongly believe that p.g. should drive these rogue republishers out of the marketplace by offering an alternative under the p.g. "brand-name", to take advantage of the reputation it has duly earned... destroying the rogue republishers in the _marketplace_ is just fine, because it reflects the conscious choices of free individual human beings; that's the way to proceed. but when it comes to the _newspaper_, it is shocking (and sad) to hear p.g. whining about the republishers -- and, even worse, trying to label them as "unethical", in the kind of despicable spin game corporations use, and do not let us forget who owns those newspapers; newby is unwittingly doing their dirty work for them... project gutenberg should be ringing the bell _loudly:_ use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical. you need to rethink your positions... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hart at pglaf.org Thu Dec 2 13:17:57 2010 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:17:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical In-Reply-To: <204f2.77f26a60.3a295ed7@aol.com> References: <204f2.77f26a60.3a295ed7@aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote: > there's one sad fact that jumps out of the recent discussion. > > i would have expected -- and hoped, too, but _expected_ > is really the correct word -- that project gutenberg would > be the entity which most consistently and most strongly > supports the right of the public to use the public-domain. One question arises immediately, of course, and that is if the 800 pound gorilla in the middle is really "the public." However, even if you consider that is is, let's go on: > and no matter how vigorous or broad that use might be, > i would have thought project gutenberg would support it. Greg and I support the use of our eBooks by all, period. Read on. > so when i see one of the precious few "officials" from p.g. > quoted in a major newspaper as questioning some use of > public-domain books as "unethical", it makes me queasy. What is unethical here is that Amazon has approched me and other Project Gutenberg "officials" repeatedly, asking for permission. . .which was denied. . .and making offers of a small support effort that would at least make up for time, and time, and time again, wasting hours of our time for an offer that never seems to have actually been good faith. To the best of my knowledge Amazon has not supported PG in any manner whatsoever as a result of these conversations. > he's acting as if p.g. owns those books. BOWERBIRD IS TOTALLY OUT OF LINE HERE, NO ONE SAID "OWN" OR "ILLEGAL". . .MERELY UNETHICAL. > it doesn't. > the _public_ owns those books.? the general public. > and p.g. should be pointing that out to _everyone_. And we do, right in the fine print mentioned earlier. > these rogue republishers should be hiding behind p.g. > as their protective shield, just like the hate-speechers > look to the a.c.l.u. to protect their freedom of speech... Are you still trying to include that 800 pound gorilla along with your Sarah Palin act of "Going Rogue???" > (and even that analogy is flawed, because hate speech > is truly ugly, while these rogue republishers are just > a minor bother at worst, or -- if you wanted to put a > nice polish on them -- good examples of free speech.) Your "hate speech" analogy is even more flawed. . . . Not to mention have treat right on the edge of Godwin. > so, when asked for his quote, newby should have said, > "more power to 'em, that's what public-domain is for." We do say "The most eBooks to the most people," but not sure Amazon is really in that direction. When person's shopping carts ring up at Amazon's prices, perhaps they decide eBooks aren't really a bargain, and they quit. > as i have said before, i strongly believe that p.g. should > drive these rogue republishers out of the marketplace > by offering an alternative under the p.g. "brand-name", > to take advantage of the reputation it has duly earned... Actually, we are working on that, even with Amazon, but I will only believe it when I see it. > destroying the rogue republishers in the _marketplace_ > is just fine, because it reflects the conscious choices of > free individual human beings; that's the way to proceed. We're not out to destroy any eBook efforts, that's bowerbird talking up his own smokestack where he has nested. > but when it comes to the _newspaper_, it is shocking > (and sad) to hear p.g. whining about the republishers > -- and, even worse, trying to label them as "unethical", > in the kind of despicable spin game corporations use, > and do not let us forget who owns those newspapers; > newby is unwittingly doing their dirty work for them... Actually, you should have seen what they tried to get him to say originally!!! And if you have been in the papers, at least as often as Newby and I have, you realize their goal is the most sensationalist quote they can manage. Even The Wall St. Journal has crossed this line with me, quoting ME as saying: "eBooks will never make it." I have learned with the media that 50% accuracy is just about all I should hope for, at least in Amercia. For some reason the Europeans seem to get it better, even when they haven't interviewed me directly. > project gutenberg should be ringing the bell _loudly:_ > use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical. Again I caution you not to say we said it was illegal, or to provide the direct quotation to be refuted. As for unethical, Amazon, nook, Sony, etc., etc., etc., are billion dollar corporations who would obviously see a great benefit in, "killing the goose that lays golden eggs" just so those golden eggs become more rare and it will be easier to hike up their prices without what the world, and you, have called "competition." Project Gutenberg is in competition with no one. Personally, I think all people in eBooks, in the world, are working for Project Gutenberg, without pay. If Amazon had never called me at all, my only arguments would be about The Golden Eggs, but since they wasted a lot of our time, I think they owe us something. Not to mention that at their cheap prices on most PG eBooks it wouldn't cost them enough to measure to leave headers & footers on there and gain the PR for supporting us. > you need to rethink your positions... You seriously need to rethink YOUR position. . . . Why are you here? > -bowerbird > > From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Dec 2 14:19:27 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:19:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical Message-ID: you and i don't disagree, michael. no matter how hard you might try, or how much you might type. sorry. you and greg seem convinced that the rogue republishers are amazon. but i see publisher names listed such as "evergreen review" and "volumesofvalue". perhaps these are just fronts for amazon, but they usually don't operate that way... and even if it was amazon itself that is selling public-domain e-books, so what? nobody complains if random house sells a "pride and prejudice" p-book, do they? corporations are part of the "public" too. and i'm truly sorry that project gutenberg hasn't benefited financially yet from talks with amazon. or google. or anyone else. i really hope that comes to pass some day. but in the meantime, you don't need any back-room negotiations or special favors. just sell your e-books yourself, at amazon. the people would _love_ to support you by purchasing their e-books directly from you. and yes, i'm quite familiar with the press, and i know how they love to twist quotes, so they will end up with something juicy... and thus i would have loved for greg to have come here and told us that he was misquoted, and that he heartily approves of republishers as a healthy sign of a vigorous public-domain, which is what i believe that he should have said. but if he came here and said he was misquoted, i must have missed that. > Your "hate speech" analogy is even more flawed. . . . > Not to mention have treat right on the edge of Godwin. actually, i was thinking of the so-called "christians" and so-called "patriots" who _today_ carry signs that say "god hates faggots", not nazis from 65 years ago. hate speech is alive and well, and thriving in the u.s.a. > If Amazon had never called me at all, > my only arguments would be about The Golden Eggs, > but since they wasted a lot of our time, > I think they owe us something.? you'll need to take that up with them. i can't help you. next time you might wanna demand to be paid in advance. > Why are you here? oh, i thought i made that clear. but i can tell you again. i'm here because i expect that project gutenberg will be one of the strongest and most consistent supporters of the rights of the public to use public-domain material... and indeed, usually i see that expectation being fulfilled. so when the opposite happens, i will say "hey, what's up?" i'm sorry if that is perceived as being disloyal in some way. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From codmolly at embarqmail.com Thu Dec 2 19:34:28 2010 From: codmolly at embarqmail.com (Linda Everhart) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:34:28 -0600 Subject: [gutvol-d] PG vs Amazon Message-ID: <2026E296-9DAF-4FCC-9107-A7B26AC27107@embarqmail.com> The difference in opinion in legal terms won't solve the problem, which is actually two problems: How do you stop this harvesting for profit, and should a PG volunteer continue to donate their efforts only to line harvesters pockets? Selling public domain eBooks for Kindle on Amazon (and all other eBook sellers) is easy. That's why harvesters do it. A simple solution for PG, which already has the files formated, is to can beat the harvesters at their own game. Yes, it will profit Amazon, but it will profit PG even more in name recognition, popularity, ethics and dollars. Just the news release that PG is going to do this would draw readers, along with donations, to the site. I'm a business person, who operated on two basic facts, the customer is always right, and three nickels are better than a dime. (I comfortably retired 17 years ago at age 39.) Customers want the best value and volunteers want to make a real difference. Give us that chance. Linda Everhart codmolly at embarqmail.com From richfield at telkomsa.net Thu Dec 2 23:13:55 2010 From: richfield at telkomsa.net (Jon Richfield) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 09:13:55 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: PG vs Amazon In-Reply-To: <2026E296-9DAF-4FCC-9107-A7B26AC27107@embarqmail.com> References: <2026E296-9DAF-4FCC-9107-A7B26AC27107@embarqmail.com> Message-ID: <4CF898B3.4090903@telkomsa.net> That is the most practical response to the situation that I have seen. The rest of the excahnges have been 90% self-indulgent inbox clutter. I am not inclined to get into this, but I could well Imagine volunteer contributors and proofers asking themselves why they are bothering with hard work just to support commercial interests for free. That is the greatest threat, not the fact that PG could clean up big if we got paid. Linda's suggestion is one option. Another that I think has been mooted and quashed is to put it to the harvesters that they are killing the layers of golden eggs and risking some bad publicity. Of course a combination might be the best idea. FWIW On 2010/12/03 05:34 AM, Linda Everhart wrote: > The difference in opinion in legal terms won't solve the problem, > which is actually two problems: How do you stop this harvesting for > profit, and should a PG volunteer continue to donate their efforts > only to line harvesters pockets? > > Selling public domain eBooks for Kindle on Amazon (and all other eBook > sellers) is easy. That's why harvesters do it. A simple solution for > PG, which already has the files formated, is to can beat the > harvesters at their own game. > > Yes, it will profit Amazon, but it will profit PG even more in name > recognition, popularity, ethics and dollars. Just the news release > that PG is going to do this would draw readers, along with donations, > to the site. > > I'm a business person, who operated on two basic facts, the customer > is always right, and three nickels are better than a dime. (I > comfortably retired 17 years ago at age 39.) > > Customers want the best value and volunteers want to make a real > difference. Give us that chance. > > Linda Everhart > codmolly at embarqmail.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Dec 2 23:49:49 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 02:49:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: PG vs Amazon Message-ID: <47e3f.5bec7eda.3a29fb1d@aol.com> jon said: > That is the most practical response to the situation that I have seen. > The rest of the excahnges have been 90% self-indulgent inbox clutter. this list never ceases to amuse me. when i suggest that p.g. should beat the harvesters to the punch by selling p.g. e-books at amazon, it's "self-indulgent inbox clutter". when linda suggests the same thing, it's "the most practical response". bless your little heart, jon... :+) it's all moot anyway, because google is about ready to blow the doors off the joint... they've just announced that google editions will go live "before christmas", and they have well over 30,000 e-texts, my friends. yeah, yeah, your accuracy is better. and betamax was better than vhs. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Thu Dec 2 23:57:11 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 08:57:11 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical In-Reply-To: <204f2.77f26a60.3a295ed7@aol.com> References: <204f2.77f26a60.3a295ed7@aol.com> Message-ID: <218CB0A3-8183-40DA-A903-216A345EB5ED@uni-trier.de> Hi BB, I do understand how these people can be rogue! They are in your own opinion are not doing anything illegal or unethical. My apologies if just reusing the term. regards Keith. Am 02.12.2010 um 21:43 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > > destroying the rogue republishers in the _marketplace_ > is just fine, because it reflects the conscious choices of > free individual human beings; that's the way to proceed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Fri Dec 3 00:08:22 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:08:22 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical In-Reply-To: References: <204f2.77f26a60.3a295ed7@aol.com> Message-ID: <8A93AB20-7E76-4077-B290-22E32CA96D11@uni-trier.de> Very interesting ! You anything in writing. If things were perfectly legal amazon would not have ask in the first place. There are like I have stated aspects. What I am try to say I amazon is selling PG texts PG should get something out of it. regards Keith. Am 02.12.2010 um 22:17 schrieb Michael S. Hart: > > What is unethical here is that Amazon has approched me and > other Project Gutenberg "officials" repeatedly, asking for > permission. . .which was denied. . .and making offers of a > small support effort that would at least make up for time, > and time, and time again, wasting hours of our time for an > offer that never seems to have actually been good faith. > > To the best of my knowledge Amazon has not supported PG in > any manner whatsoever as a result of these conversations. > From Bowerbird at aol.com Fri Dec 3 00:24:39 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 03:24:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical Message-ID: <492f1.58b11e38.3a2a0347@aol.com> keith said: > I do understand how these people can be rogue! > They are in your own opinion > are not doing anything illegal or unethical. here in america, the term "rogue" is en vogue these days; the republican nitwits even use it to describe themselves. we probably should reserve the word for true criminals, but then again, these republican nitwits are aiding and abetting the bankers, who are truly rogue criminals, so maybe it's not so far-fetched of a term after all, ya know? i'm using it mainly to acknowledge that some people here have tried to paint these republishers as doing some evil... but they haven't done anything illegal, as everyone agrees. and the argument about "unethical" hasn't really been made in a conscious way that can be fairly debated. mostly it relies on the subconscious feeling that the volunteers should have some degree of control over how their work is being used, but -- as understandable as that might be -- it just doesn't apply, because that public-domain base content belongs to everyone. if i grow flowers in a public place, someone will come along and pick them, and if that bothers me, hey, that's just my tough luck. but let me be absolutely clear that i don't like these republishers one bit. they are clearly taking advantage of a certain situation, and i firmly believe that we should find a way of stopping them. lucky for us, there's a very simple way. beat them to the punch. pick the flowers before the other guys, and sell them yourself. the public would much rather buy them from the people who grew 'em, rather than the guys who just went and picked 'em. give the public the chance to do the right thing, and they will... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Fri Dec 3 00:41:15 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 03:41:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical Message-ID: <49a99.ec0c06a.3a2a072b@aol.com> keith said: > What I am try to say I amazon is selling PG texts > PG should get something out of it. when you call them "p.g. texts", you create an implicit conveyance that p.g. owns them, and then extrapolate from that to jump to the conclusion p.g. should be compensated. but project gutenberg doesn't own those texts. i'm sorry, but it's true. even the sweat-of-the-brow _improvements_ which p.g. volunteers made to those e-texts do _not_ entitle p.g. to any legal recompense. again, i'm sorry, but it's true. good thing, too, or p.g. volunteers would likely have to pay internet archive and/or google for using their scan-sets and o.c.r., and everyone would have to be paying the libraries who shelved the books for decades. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joshua at hutchinson.net Fri Dec 3 04:30:35 2010 From: joshua at hutchinson.net (Joshua Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 12:30:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books References: <65f22.5ecee909.3a28a3a1@aol.com> <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> Message-ID: <2011652900.94455.1291379435462.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Fri Dec 3 04:54:26 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:54:26 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical In-Reply-To: <49a99.ec0c06a.3a2a072b@aol.com> References: <49a99.ec0c06a.3a2a072b@aol.com> Message-ID: Am 03.12.2010 um 09:41 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > keith said: > > What I am try to say I amazon is selling PG texts > > PG should get something out of it. > > when you call them "p.g. texts", you create > an implicit conveyance that p.g. owns them, > and then extrapolate from that to jump to > the conclusion p.g. should be compensated. > > but project gutenberg doesn't own those texts. > i'm sorry, but it's true. Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. The may not own copyright. But they do own them. At least the container (aka file) they are in! Now, let us a little further. If you own the container and you produced what is in said container ----->>> you own it!! Or, do you think that if we put child pornography files or the pg site. The courts would say that pg does not own them. Interresting fact! Of course I am assuming p.g. is considered to be a legal person (maybe the correct american legal term). > > even the sweat-of-the-brow _improvements_ > which p.g. volunteers made to those e-texts > do _not_ entitle p.g. to any legal recompense. > > again, i'm sorry, but it's true. > > good thing, too, or p.g. volunteers would > likely have to pay internet archive and/or > google for using their scan-sets and o.c.r., > and everyone would have to be paying the > libraries who shelved the books for decades. Why, you are wrong again! They could have us pay for to use them. Forget not, they are offering a service! It is their choice. Just like PG can ask that they be paid! Just like those that harvest the PG texts get paid we the require it. By the way who pays the bills of the libraries? regards Keith. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Fri Dec 3 05:09:17 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:09:17 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <2011652900.94455.1291379435462.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> References: <65f22.5ecee909.3a28a3a1@aol.com> <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> <2011652900.94455.1291379435462.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> Message-ID: Am 03.12.2010 um 13:30 schrieb Joshua Hutchinson: > I think the *scariest* thing about this whole deal is that I keep finding myself agreeing with bowerbird. > > 1 - Copyright and Public Domain are opposite concepts. Once a work is public domain, you *cannot* get a copyright on it by republishing it. Never said they were the same. I said they were different. But, that was never the point. Neither was copyrighting the work by itself or the work verbatim! > > 2 - The rogue sellers, while not necessarily nice, are perfectly legal. In fact, there is precedent. I used to go to computer expos all the time back in the 90s and there was always one guys selling CDs full of stuff he downloaded off the Internet. And a PG cd was always there (with the PG boilerplate conveniently missing to get around the trademark). PG offers a service. For free. they could change terms of use any time! Which could include that commercial exploitation is forbidden. Proving it is a different matter. > > 3 - I also think we should have (we as in PG) "published" everything to Amazon et al as soon as it became obviously this new-fangled ebook reader fad was gonna stick around! :) I also always thought it would have been a good idea (and small income stream) to publish PG texts through a print-on-demand shop like lulu.com. The problem was always finding the time and volunteer to do it. > > Now, since I've agreed publically with bowerbird three times, I'm gonna go find my family members and kiss and hug them goodbye, because I'm pretty sure this is the sign of the coming apocalypse. Do not forgot to wash three times, first! ;-)) I hereby give you absolution. regards Keith. From joshua at hutchinson.net Fri Dec 3 05:40:56 2010 From: joshua at hutchinson.net (Joshua Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:40:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books References: <65f22.5ecee909.3a28a3a1@aol.com> <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> <2011652900.94455.1291379435462.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> Message-ID: <869696607.95193.1291383656430.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> On Dec 3, 2010, Keith J. Schultz wrote: >> 2 - The rogue sellers, while not necessarily nice, are perfectly legal. In fact, there is precedent. I used to go to computer expos all the time back in the 90s and there was always one guys selling CDs full of stuff he downloaded off the Internet. And a PG cd was always there (with the PG boilerplate conveniently missing to get around the trademark). >PG offers a service. For free. they could change terms of use any time! Which could include that commercial exploitation is forbidden. Proving it is a different matter. No. PG *can't* do that. PG does not own a copyright for these texts. PG *cannot* own a copyright on those texts (at least in the US, where PG is based). That's the whole point and meaning of "Public Domain". The public "owns" it and no one else can take ownership (even if somone claims they have a new copyright, it doesn't mean they do). Putting the public domain text inside a different container (ie, a text file), does not grant a new copyright. Even Michael's "compilation" copyright example is a whole grey area that is best described as "Yes, but ..." It's hard to just put together pieces or public domain work and claim a new copyright. It's easier (and in Shakespeare's case much more common) to put together pieces along with some editorial additions, such as extensive footnoting, and claim a copyright on the whole thing that way. Even then, there is an argument to make that if you stripped all the editorial additions out, you'd be able to claim public domain on the original Shakespeare. But, again, grey area and I personally wouldn't want to take on that fight. The PG license applies ONLY to the use of the Project Gutenberg *trademark*. If you strip out the legal fine print that contains that trademark ... boom, you have zero obligation to PG. Which is what, I'm assuming, these republishers have done. Again, perfectly legal. Josh From richfield at telkomsa.net Fri Dec 3 05:57:36 2010 From: richfield at telkomsa.net (Jon Richfield) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:57:36 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: PG vs Amazon In-Reply-To: <47e3f.5bec7eda.3a29fb1d@aol.com> References: <47e3f.5bec7eda.3a29fb1d@aol.com> Message-ID: <4CF8F750.9050002@telkomsa.net> Oh come ON bb, mind your antecedents unless you are posing as a troll or paranoid!! No matter how solipsistically you think, you know damwell not everyone in this forum is the same person saying the same things to the same proddings. > when i suggest that p.g. should beat the harvesters to the punch > by selling p.g. e-books at amazon, it's "self-indulgent inbox clutter". You have produced plenty of that stuff among all the rest in this exchange. A lot of the other guys have indulged you. The topic was chewed to rags in earlier exchanges, without achieving anything that I noticed (if anyone noticed any achievement more impressive than to convince you that everyone was out to GET you, I missed it, but please don't bother to bring it to my ever-aghast attention. ) By mingling pointlessly with the husks you have qualified for the title along with the worst of them. > > when linda suggests the same thing, it's "the most practical response". Linda got to the point; she stuck to the point till she had made the point. Then she stopped. She was was logical, trenchant and might yet prove effective. Notice any distinctions between that and various of her correspondents' contributions? > > bless your little heart, jon... :+) And your little bb... > > it's all moot anyway, because google is about ready to blow the doors > off the joint... they've just announced that google editions will go live > "before christmas", and they have well over 30,000 e-texts, my friends. > yeah, yeah, your accuracy is better. and betamax was better than vhs. Yeah, yeah...! Now what next, if anything? Go well, Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcello at perathoner.de Fri Dec 3 07:34:06 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 16:34:06 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: PG vs Amazon In-Reply-To: <2026E296-9DAF-4FCC-9107-A7B26AC27107@embarqmail.com> References: <2026E296-9DAF-4FCC-9107-A7B26AC27107@embarqmail.com> Message-ID: <4CF90DEE.3030202@perathoner.de> On 12/03/2010 04:34 AM, Linda Everhart wrote: > The difference in opinion in legal terms won't solve the problem, which > is actually two problems: How do you stop this harvesting for profit, You don't. It is legal. And it is ethical. The PG license *requires* them to remove all mention of PG. And they *do* remove all mention to PG. If there's anybody to blame it is PG, because it uses a license that forbids people from acknowledging the origin of the texts. Talk about a suicidal business model. > and should a PG volunteer continue to donate their efforts only to line > harvesters pockets? That's for the volunteer to decide. > Selling public domain eBooks for Kindle on Amazon (and all other eBook > sellers) is easy. That's why harvesters do it. A simple solution for PG, > which already has the files formated, is to can beat the harvesters at > their own game. If I understand correctly, you are proposing to sell PG texts on Amazon? It is not so easy as it sounds, because: Those people who do, don't take the Kindle files hosted at PG and sell them on Amazon. They (mostly) take the plain text versions and reformat them into Kindle versions. They actually *add value* by reformatting them and making them available an Amazon, and thus it *is ethical* to put a price tag on it. PG cannot bulk dump their Kindle files onto Amazon because they are not of sufficient quality. And I specifically blame: - PG for failing to introduce a master format that would have made bulk conversion of the whole archive to the Kindle a breeze. - DP for producing overly complex rococo HTML markup that does not degrade gracefully into the very simple HTML that is at the core of the Kindle format. As of now, the majority of PG texts need a major rework to look good enough to be sold. > Customers want the best value and volunteers want to make a real > difference. Give us that chance. Every proposal that has ever been made to improve the usability of the PG archive has been met with the standard "we'll provide servers for you"-answer and no other reaction whatsoever. PG wants to obsolete. The refusal of the PG `leaders? to lead anywhere has caused a decade-long stagnation. Small wonder that younger and nimbler people are now making the money we could be making. Its like stealing Grandpa's tobacco pouch while he's asleep on the porch. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From walter.van.holst at xs4all.nl Fri Dec 3 07:35:41 2010 From: walter.van.holst at xs4all.nl (Walter van Holst) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 16:35:41 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: PG vs Amazon In-Reply-To: <4CF898B3.4090903@telkomsa.net> References: <2026E296-9DAF-4FCC-9107-A7B26AC27107@embarqmail.com> <4CF898B3.4090903@telkomsa.net> Message-ID: <4CF90E4D.4040808@xs4all.nl> On 12/3/10 8:13 AM, Jon Richfield wrote: > That is the most practical response to the situation that I have seen. > The rest of the excahnges have been 90% self-indulgent inbox clutter. I > am not inclined to get into this, but I could well Imagine volunteer > contributors and proofers asking themselves why they are bothering with > hard work just to support commercial interests for free. That is the > greatest threat, not the fact that PG could clean up big if we got paid. As a small-time volunteer: I don't care. The public domain is just that: public. If anyone manages to make a mint out of it, more power to them. At worst it only helps in the everlasting debate about the 'value' of the public domain. Regards, Walter From Bowerbird at aol.com Fri Dec 3 07:56:48 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:56:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical Message-ID: <11e70d.6a7566f6.3a2a6d40@aol.com> you're wrong, keith. and -- as we have now seen -- nobody else here cares enough about you to _tell_ you that, so i shan't bother any more either. but hey, have a nice day, ok? :+) -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Fri Dec 3 08:04:10 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:04:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: PG vs Amazon Message-ID: <11f043.65f38648.3a2a6efa@aol.com> jon said: > Oh come ON bb, mind your antecedents > unless you are posing as a troll or paranoid!!? ok, so let me see if i'm getting this straight... i can either say that i am: a) a troll, or b) paranoid, or c) indulging in self-indulgent inbox clutter, or d) (presumably) all of the above. oh gee, jon, that's such a rich range of choices, i'm torn badly, and simply _cannot_ decide, so why don't you just pick and surprise me, all right? thanks so much! and you have a nice day too, ok? :+) in the meantime, we have reached agreement, that linda's proposal is logical, trenchant, and might yet prove effective. i know i'm certainly rooting for her. heck, i'm treating her idea as if it was my very own... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcello at perathoner.de Fri Dec 3 11:48:27 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 20:48:27 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <2011652900.94455.1291379435462.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> References: <65f22.5ecee909.3a28a3a1@aol.com> <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> <2011652900.94455.1291379435462.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> Message-ID: <4CF9498B.1010808@perathoner.de> On 12/03/2010 01:30 PM, Joshua Hutchinson wrote: > 3 - I also think we should have (we as in PG) "published" everything to Amazon > et al as soon as it became obviously this new-fangled ebook reader fad was gonna > stick around! From preliminary research it figures that: - You cannot offer free Kindle books (yet). - Minimum price would be $0.99 - $2.99 (depending on size). - We would get only 35% royalty (you are not allowed to sell PD stuff under the 70% royalty option). furthermore: "... you must adjust the List Price as required to ensure that the List Price, plus 15% (the statutory Luxembourg VAT rate) for sales to UK customers, does not exceed the lowest of: (a) the lowest suggested retail price or equivalent price for any digital or physical edition of the Digital Book; (b) the lowest price at which you list or offer any digital or physical edition of the Digital Book on any website or other sales channel; and (c) any maximum List Price we provide from time to time in the Program Policies." ---- http://forums.digitaltextplatform.com/dtpforums/entry.jspa?externalID=393 This has the ridiculous consequence that everybody can sell stuff from PG on Amazon except PG. We would have to match the price we 'sell' the book on gutenberg.org and at the same time maintain a minimum price of $0.99. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From jimad at msn.com Fri Dec 3 13:22:26 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:22:26 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: number one favorite thing ever In-Reply-To: <4f1b9.1eb93336.3a25a967@aol.com> References: <4f1b9.1eb93336.3a25a967@aol.com> Message-ID: >software shouldn't be hard. unless you have to work around a million different permutations of the hardware, a la android... The only android permutation that I see as being "hard" are perhaps the touch variations of capacitive vs resistive vs no-touch. Certainly screen size / resolution differences shouldn't be an obstacle to modern software design. In the reader/tablet/cellphone world it seems the "hard" part is for monopolistic vendors to avoid their own temptations to unreasonably lock-down their product in the hopes of tying in sales. Of course it doesn't work that way, with customers simply "routing around damage" and moving to vendors who do not unreasonably lock down their product -- even if products that aren't "locked down" do end up being kind of messy in that then software vendors can offer any product they want, including products that are not well implemented nor well thought out. But the market weeds out poorly designed software, in practice, because most people end up not buying bad software. From jimad at msn.com Fri Dec 3 13:55:30 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:55:30 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <41FBB030BC65472082CE4F04E2E5E8DE@alp2400> References: <41FBB030BC65472082CE4F04E2E5E8DE@alp2400> Message-ID: PG volunteer efforts end up being re-sold all over the place, in ebooks and in paper books, including lots sold by "just in time" printers. Do the volunteers not realize this is "part of the plan?" A "PG" book is not a "PG" book unless it still says "PG" in it, if it doesn't then it is free game. If it does still say "PG" in it then the for-pay re-publisher owes PG a royalty for the use of the PG name. Or at least PG asserts as much. When a risen-to-the-public-domain work gets copied -- even if considerable "donkey work" goes into cleaning up that copy either by a volunteer, or by a paid human being, or by ever-better OCR software, that doesn't stop the copy from remaining a risen-to-the-public-domain work, and thank god for that. Otherwise every publisher can just put a new cover on a old book and claim renewed copyright status for another 80 years. Oh wait, I guess some do just that. IMHO the real complaint ought to be when risen-to-the-public-domain works get resold under DRM thus prohibiting what IMHO ought to continue to be legally allowed copying. Not a lawyer to argue the status of reselling risen works under DRM, but, at least morally I think the volunteers DO have a reasonable moral complaint if not a legal one when their efforts get resold under DRM. Don't buy "risen" books under DRM, and do not support companies that "lock down" their devices such that in practice you can only read books that are under DRM. Who "owns" risen-to-the-public-domain books? The public does. The public has already paid for those books, by paying economic "rent" on those books to the publisher for all those years that the book remained under copyright. The intent of copyright was always to allow *limited time* monopoly rights to authors so that they could be compensated for their artistic efforts, in exchange for the public's free use of those books for the rest of forever. The intent was never that any author or publisher could claim ownership "forever." [But don't try to tell that to Mickey Mouse.] Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. For legal advice hire a lawyer. From Bowerbird at aol.com Fri Dec 3 14:01:09 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 17:01:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: number one favorite thing ever Message-ID: <1d6a61.26cf6692.3a2ac2a5@aol.com> jim said: > The only android permutation that I see as being "hard" are > perhaps the touch variations of capacitive vs resistive vs no-touch. well, touch-screen versus not, that's a pretty big start, isn't it? your touch-screen program won't work on a non-touch phone. the carriers spec the phones, so there are no required features, which means there are none that you can depend on to be there. and if a piece of software doesn't find all the features it needs, it's not going to end up pleasing the customer very much, is it? the first generation android phones are what?, 18 months old, and they've already been orphaned, unable to upgrade to the current version of the operating system, let alone future ones... i wish android the best of luck... apple needs a good competitor to help push along the state of the art at more than a snail's pace. i just think programming android is gonna be building on sand... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Fri Dec 3 14:09:26 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 17:09:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books Message-ID: <1d7264.5ab805be.3a2ac496@aol.com> so let's boil the question down to the hard case, shall we? suppose that amazon -- or anyone else -- offered up that project gutenberg could veto a republisher selling e-texts that "reasonably" look like they were repurposed from p.g., and amazon (or that anyone else) would respect the veto... do you think project gutenberg should exercise that veto? consider the matter carefully, my friends, _very_ carefully... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Fri Dec 3 14:46:57 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 23:46:57 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <869696607.95193.1291383656430.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> References: <65f22.5ecee909.3a28a3a1@aol.com> <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> <2011652900.94455.1291379435462.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> <869696607.95193.1291383656430.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> Message-ID: I have nothing more to say to such ignorance of facts. regards Keith Am 03.12.2010 um 14:40 schrieb Joshua Hutchinson: > > > On Dec 3, 2010, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > > >>> 2 - The rogue sellers, while not necessarily nice, are perfectly legal. In fact, there is precedent. I used to go to computer expos all the time back in the 90s and there was always one guys selling CDs full of stuff he downloaded off the Internet. And a PG cd was always there (with the PG boilerplate conveniently missing to get around the trademark). > > >> PG offers a service. For free. they could change terms of use any time! Which could include that commercial exploitation is forbidden. Proving it is a different matter. > > > No. PG *can't* do that. PG does not own a copyright for these texts. PG *cannot* own a copyright on those texts (at least in the US, where PG is based). That's the whole point and meaning of "Public Domain". The public "owns" it and no one else can take ownership (even if somone claims they have a new copyright, it doesn't mean they do). Putting the public domain text inside a different container (ie, a text file), does not grant a new copyright. Even Michael's "compilation" copyright example is a whole grey area that is best described as "Yes, but ..." It's hard to just put together pieces or public domain work and claim a new copyright. It's easier (and in Shakespeare's case much more common) to put together pieces along with some editorial additions, such as extensive footnoting, and claim a copyright on the whole thing that way. Even then, there is an argument to make that if you stripped all the editorial additions out, you'd be able to claim public domain on t > he original Shakespeare. But, again, grey area and I personally wouldn't want to take on that fight. > > The PG license applies ONLY to the use of the Project Gutenberg *trademark*. If you strip out the legal fine print that contains that trademark ... boom, you have zero obligation to PG. Which is what, I'm assuming, these republishers have done. > > Again, perfectly legal. From prosfilaes at gmail.com Fri Dec 3 15:37:16 2010 From: prosfilaes at gmail.com (David Starner) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 15:37:16 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <869696607.95193.1291383656430.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> References: <65f22.5ecee909.3a28a3a1@aol.com> <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> <2011652900.94455.1291379435462.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> <869696607.95193.1291383656430.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 5:40 AM, Joshua Hutchinson wrote: > Even Michael's "compilation" copyright example is a whole grey area that is best described as "Yes, but ..." ?It's hard to just put together pieces or public domain work and claim a new copyright. Not really; compilations are well-protected under law. If you publish a book with the exact same 25 stories in the Mammoth Book of Vintage Whodunnits, you've violated their copyright. My problem is that Michael had little creative influence on the compilation; some 300 hundred of those books were mine, my choice of what to work on. Only a tiny fraction of PG's collection was chosen by any one person, so I don't think anyone can claim a compilation copyright on it. -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero. From walter.van.holst at xs4all.nl Sat Dec 4 05:34:40 2010 From: walter.van.holst at xs4all.nl (Walter van Holst) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:34:40 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: References: <41FBB030BC65472082CE4F04E2E5E8DE@alp2400> Message-ID: <4CFA4370.4060405@xs4all.nl> On 12/3/10 10:55 PM, Jim Adcock wrote: > Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. For legal advice hire a lawyer. Well, _I am_ (although not sworn in at any bar and got a law degree in the Netherlands), but I do agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote. Regards, Walter From joshua at hutchinson.net Sat Dec 4 15:19:09 2010 From: joshua at hutchinson.net (Joshua Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 23:19:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books References: <65f22.5ecee909.3a28a3a1@aol.com> <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> <2011652900.94455.1291379435462.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> <4CF9498B.1010808@perathoner.de> Message-ID: <1781150970.18274.1291504749796.JavaMail.mail@webmail01> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gbnewby at pglaf.org Sat Dec 4 16:53:47 2010 From: gbnewby at pglaf.org (Greg Newby) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 16:53:47 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <1781150970.18274.1291504749796.JavaMail.mail@webmail01> References: <65f22.5ecee909.3a28a3a1@aol.com> <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> <2011652900.94455.1291379435462.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> <4CF9498B.1010808@perathoner.de> <1781150970.18274.1291504749796.JavaMail.mail@webmail01> Message-ID: <20101205005347.GA3976@pglaf.org> On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 11:19:09PM +0000, Joshua Hutchinson wrote: > There is a precedent for the argument that giving the book away for free > doesn't count as the lowest sale price (it isn't being sold). > The example I found is Cory Doctorow (who is famous for offering all his > books for free download): > For the Win (as a Kindle edition): > [1]http://www.amazon.com/For-the-Win-ebook/dp/B003VTZSK4/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&qid=1291504446&sr=8-3 > For the Win (as a free download from Cory's website): > [2]http://craphound.com/ftw/download/ > Note, the Kindle version is $9.99 > So, I think PG could get away with selling any of our work for $.99 a > copy. Absolutely. We're going to try it. I'm wading through their paperwork... Linda plans on taking the first steps for us, but might want help. Maybe there can be parallel efforts... -- Greg > Though, I agree with you in your other post about the quality not really > being there for a lot of it. ??Maybe we should make a volunteer effort to > post the "Top 100" PG works to Amazon ... > Josh > > On Dec 3, 2010, Marcello Perathoner wrote: > > On 12/03/2010 01:30 PM, Joshua Hutchinson wrote: > > > 3 - I also think we should have (we as in PG) "published" everything > to Amazon > > et al as soon as it became obviously this new-fangled ebook reader fad > was gonna > > stick around! > > From preliminary research it figures that: > > - You cannot offer free Kindle books (yet). > - Minimum price would be $0.99 - $2.99 (depending on size). > - We would get only 35% royalty (you are not allowed to sell > PD stuff under the 70% royalty option). > > furthermore: > > "... you must adjust the List Price as required to ensure that the List > Price, plus 15% (the statutory Luxembourg VAT rate) for sales to UK > customers, does not exceed the lowest of: (a) the lowest suggested > retail price or equivalent price for any digital or physical edition of > the Digital Book; (b) the lowest price at which you list or offer any > digital or physical edition of the Digital Book on any website or other > sales channel; and (c) any maximum List Price we provide from time to > time in the Program Policies." > > ---- > [3]http://forums.digitaltextplatform.com/dtpforums/entry.jspa?externalID=393 > > This has the ridiculous consequence that everybody can sell stuff from > PG on Amazon except PG. We would have to match the price we 'sell' the > book on gutenberg.org and at the same time maintain a minimum price of > $0.99. > > -- > Marcello Perathoner > [4]webmaster at gutenberg.org > > References > > Visible links > 1. http://www.amazon.com/For-the-Win-ebook/dp/B003VTZSK4/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&qid=1291504446&sr=8-3 > 2. http://craphound.com/ftw/download/ > 3. http://forums.digitaltextplatform.com/dtpforums/entry.jspa?externalID=393 > 4. mailto:webmaster at gutenberg.org > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d From ahwang at pglaf.org Sun Dec 5 07:57:36 2010 From: ahwang at pglaf.org (Andrew Hwang) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 07:57:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] PG book for sale with license intact Message-ID: <20101205155736.26FE21926@pglaf.org> It appears that PG etext #33283 (Calculus Made Easy) is being sold by myebook.com with its Gutenberg license intact: http://www.myebook.com/index.php?option=ebook&id=47492 I'm guessing this contravenes the PG license, though I don't know who to ask about whether a third-party seller is paying royalties to PG. Where should this be reported, if at all? Thanks, Andy From Bowerbird at aol.com Sun Dec 5 14:24:04 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 17:24:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: PG book for sale with license intact Message-ID: <165c4.238277e3.3a2d6b04@aol.com> andy said: > Where should this be reported, if at all? ok, who wants to volunteer to be on the team that sends out the cease-and-desist notices? don't all step forward at once, now... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From traverso at posso.dm.unipi.it Sun Dec 5 23:53:05 2010 From: traverso at posso.dm.unipi.it (Carlo Traverso) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:53:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: PG book for sale with license intact In-Reply-To: <165c4.238277e3.3a2d6b04@aol.com> (Bowerbird@aol.com) References: <165c4.238277e3.3a2d6b04@aol.com> Message-ID: <20101206075305.4D34310102@cardano.dm.unipi.it> >>>>> "Bowerbird" == Bowerbird writes: Bowerbird> ok, who wants to volunteer to be on the team that sends Bowerbird> out the cease-and-desist notices? No cease-and-desist notice can be sent. The PG lience states - You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. So they can sell the books. When and if they make profits (and don't pay the royalties) they can be claimed. It will be extremely hard to enforce the payments from a small company, especially if they sell other ebooks from different sources. Carlo From Bowerbird at aol.com Mon Dec 6 00:51:24 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 03:51:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: PG book for sale with license intact Message-ID: carlo said: > No cease-and-desist notice can be sent. did you think i was serious? :+) -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paul at frixxon.co.uk Mon Dec 6 04:12:55 2010 From: paul at frixxon.co.uk (Paul Flo Williams) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:12:55 -0000 (GMT) Subject: [gutvol-d] How are the ebook files generated? Message-ID: I've nearly finished producing my first text for PG and, in order to test the HTML, I've been viewing it in Firefox and also using kindlegen to convert it to Mobipocket format, which I'm then using a Kindle to view. I've been hunting for details of the current conversion process on the Wiki, and haven't come across any concrete information about how PG does the conversions. Could anyone please point me to the documents or software that are used? From marcello at perathoner.de Mon Dec 6 10:53:22 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:53:22 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: How are the ebook files generated? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CFD3122.8050801@perathoner.de> On 12/06/2010 01:12 PM, Paul Flo Williams wrote: > I've nearly finished producing my first text for PG and, in order to test > the HTML, I've been viewing it in Firefox and also using kindlegen to > convert it to Mobipocket format, which I'm then using a Kindle to view. > > I've been hunting for details of the current conversion process on the > Wiki, and haven't come across any concrete information about how PG does > the conversions. Could anyone please point me to the documents or software > that are used? > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > The software is here: http://www.gutenberg.org/tools/ but works on Linux only (until somebody ports it). Also read this: http://www.pgdp.net/wiki/EPUB -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From marcello at perathoner.de Mon Dec 6 12:27:30 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 21:27:30 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <20101205005347.GA3976@pglaf.org> References: <65f22.5ecee909.3a28a3a1@aol.com> <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> <2011652900.94455.1291379435462.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> <4CF9498B.1010808@perathoner.de> <1781150970.18274.1291504749796.JavaMail.mail@webmail01> <20101205005347.GA3976@pglaf.org> Message-ID: <4CFD4732.5070807@perathoner.de> On 12/05/2010 01:53 AM, Greg Newby wrote: > Absolutely. We're going to try it. I'm wading through their > paperwork... Linda plans on taking the first steps for us, but might > want help. Maybe there can be parallel efforts... > -- Greg I suggest PG opens an official account for the "Amazon Tiger Team". I can write a batch uploader as soon as I get access to the Amazon backoffice. This will also batch upload metadata. We need a QA team to test our books on the Kindle. Maybe start with the Top 100 on PG and Amazon and work through the entire collection. Then we need to redo popular books that don't work well on the Kindle. That probably means new dumbed down editions. Oh, and Google opened their shop today too. What about them? -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From jimad at msn.com Mon Dec 6 13:11:30 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 13:11:30 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Google "officially" gets into the ebook business In-Reply-To: <4CF8F750.9050002@telkomsa.net> References: <47e3f.5bec7eda.3a29fb1d@aol.com> <4CF8F750.9050002@telkomsa.net> Message-ID: http://books.google.com/ebooks They are using Adobe's DRM so their efforts should be compatible with most epub dedicated readers. They are also offering their free line of classic books through this forum as well as Google Books, via PDF "photocopies" if you read online, or via their computer-generated OCR epubs if you want it for your dedicated ebook reader. Their computerized OCR seems much better nowadays than it used to be, but, in terms of making a pleasantly-usable epub product from that OCR they still have a long ways to go, IMHO. They attempt to put a happy face on their "free" offerings by hand-crafting a "top 100" classics list, roughly speaking. Now news media is talking about how they're keeping your ebooks "in the cloud" is something new and different, but I don't see how that's any different than Kindle which keeps track of and allows you to download books again forever, and keeps your place synced across devices. In fact, this seems identical to me. ? However epub Adobe DRM'ed is better than Amazon's DRM'ed MOBI file format, at least in terms of number of independent ebook readers it can run on. Do I *want* Google to know everything I read so that they can help advertisers target me? Well, with the number of old books I read, presumably Google tells their advertiser-sponsors "Give Up, He's Not Going to Buy Anything!" From Bowerbird at aol.com Mon Dec 6 13:35:10 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:35:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] choke-points on the internet Message-ID: i have always said that the "rich boys" who run the world would cut off the internet if it really started to hurt them. but i didn't think they'd have the cajones to do it directly. i thought they'd blame it on "terrorist hackers" instead, and pretend that they were trying to "solve the problem", and always just "'succeeding" enough so _they_ had access, but the public didn't, or got it only in very sporadic bursts. but current events prove they won't bother with a charade. they're now cutting any cord they can that leads to wikileaks. oh sure, at first they did it with cowardly denial-of-service attacks that they tried to lay off on anonymous individuals. but anyone with even half a brain knew that was not true... it didn't take long, though, for the government to come out and start to take direct action that was loud and aggressive. you probably are just as familiar with those actions as i am, so i won't bother to recount them, except for one which you might not have heard about: raytheon has told its employees that they cannot read wikileaks even on their own machines in their own homes; it'd jeopardize their security clearances. welcome to your future, people... your boss owns your ass... so if you think you're gonna use the internet to take down the repressive government you elected to run your country, or the businessmen who really do, might wanna think again. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimad at msn.com Mon Dec 6 14:33:48 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:33:48 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <4CF6868A.1010104@xs4all.nl> References: <8ade4.5213a666.3a26b799@aol.com> <0E17CCBD-CD8D-4AC3-8206-ACA60A3BF280@uni-trier.de> <4CF6868A.1010104@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: >It only proves that ease of access and a nice representation are valued over just having the content available in archaic ASCII-formats. The sad thing is that many "for pay" "public domain" books on Amazon, and on other web sites do not even have as "nice a representation" as the epub and mobi books on the PG site. Some of the "for pay" "public domain" books are weak OCR efforts which have not even been corrected. Of course, with Amazon, you can ask for your money back. But it is sad to see others take the PG volunteers' efforts, degrade them, and then make people to pay for them. From hart at pglaf.org Mon Dec 6 14:51:53 2010 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:51:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: choke-points on the internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote: > i have always said that the "rich boys" who run the world > would cut off the internet if it really started to hurt them. > > but i didn't think they'd have the cajones to do it directly. > i thought they'd blame it on "terrorist hackers" instead, > and pretend that they were trying to "solve the problem", > and always just "'succeeding" enough so _they_ had access, > but the public didn't, or got it only in very sporadic bursts. You mean kinda like "1984"? Big Brother gets more and more powers all the time due to attacks from pretty phantom terrorist enemies??? > but current events prove they won't bother with a charade. Probalby because such a charade would be too obvious??? Spanish American War was pretty obvious. . . . World War I was pretty obvious. . . . World War II, at least to some, was pretty obvious, as per the events we will be remembering in just 8 hours. . . . > they're now cutting any cord they can that leads to wikileaks. You didn't know they would??? > oh sure, at first they did it with cowardly denial-of-service > attacks that they tried to lay off on anonymous individuals. > but anyone with even half a brain knew that was not true... > > it didn't take long, though, for the government to come out > and start to take direct action that was loud and aggressive. > > you probably are just as familiar with those actions as i am, > so i won't bother to recount them, except for one which you > might not have heard about: raytheon has told its employees > that they cannot read wikileaks even on their own machines > in their own homes; it'd jeopardize their security clearances. > welcome to your future, people...? your boss owns your ass... > > so if you think you're gonna use the internet to take down > the repressive government you elected to run your country, > or the businessmen who really do, might wanna think again. > > -bowerbird > > From Bowerbird at aol.com Mon Dec 6 15:18:46 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 18:18:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: choke-points on the internet Message-ID: <95a81.73691058.3a2ec956@aol.com> michael said: > You didn't know they would??? well, as i just said, i always knew they'd do it, eventually, once their interests started to get impacted badly enough. but i thought it would take something rather _serious_... of course, i don't know how serious wikileaks will eventually become. what has been released so far is embarrassing, yes, and somewhat revealing, but very little of it has been "shocking". but only about 1,000 of the 250,000 cables have been put out. and the power-holders do know what's in the other 249,000... so the fact that they're trying to do a preemptive strike _now_ has to be a telling sign that there is still a lot of dirt to come, and that some of it will undoubtedly be extremely damning... -bowerbird p.s. by the way, michael, i sent you a present last friday... you should get it this week, they guessed thursday or friday. i sent it u.p.s. if you want the tracking number, i can send it. it's a present for december 10th, which i remember is a day that is special for you... just a little something from a fan... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Mon Dec 6 15:53:05 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 18:53:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] google e-bookstore is open for business Message-ID: <97ef6.6e4c6b20.3a2ed161@aol.com> google opened their e-bookstore today... since it has been delayed for quite a long time -- i believe it was promised for last christmas -- you could have expected that they'd get it right... and in a number of ways, they did. but there are still some embarrassing glitches that reveal themselves with very little prodding. for example, 2 of the 4 books on the top shelf at the site are lacking proper paragraph indents. that's the kind of thing you should see right away, and fix immediately, certainly before release-day. the one search i tried took me to the wrong page. the flowing-text display gives a nice 2-up display, so you see facing-pages. but scanned-page mode only shows one page at a time, so that's inefficient. in an interesting twist, the text-reflow display mode shows you the pagenumbers from the original book, which means google is keeping track of that variable. (but they don't show you where the pagebreaks are.) the text-resize feature gives some very odd results. in addition to resizing the text, it changes the rule. (the "rule" is the body-text width between margins.) when text-size is increased, the rule is increased too. in and of itself, that's ok, perhaps even to be praised. except that the rule is increased _too_much_, so that not only are the words on the line bigger, but there are _more_ words than there were at the smaller size. this is very bad, both from a typographic perspective, and from a user-expectation perspective. we expect -- based on experience with other text software -- that bigger text-size means _fewer_ words per line... my research has also shown that it's good if you can reproduce the linebreaks and pagebreaks of the scan, but google hasn't given itself the capability to do that. it'd be nice if at least _one_ of the text-resize options gave the end-user the same linebreaks as the p-book, so that we could easily compare the two render-modes. as it is, it's difficult to check if google's o.c.r. is good... (even more so because they don't give you a combined display-mode, where the text is shown next to the scan.) *** there are some other things which are not "problems", but which aren't as full-featured as we'd like 'em to be. google only lets users choose between a miserly 4 fonts. there are only 3 leading choices; 2 are fairly unusable. the text-size choices won't help the visually challenged. *** google claims to have 3 million e-books available now. but i'd bet you they won't give anyone a complete list... oh, and they'll keep your books in the cloud for you... which means they can cut you off any time they want. in sum, at least the thing is out and we can bang on it; but it certainly could've made a more impressive debut. *** ironically, in light of one of the recent threads here, 1 of the 4 books on that top shelf was a republishing of dickens, by penguin, with "enhanced-book" extras. $7.99. those "enhancements" better be damn good... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paul at frixxon.co.uk Mon Dec 6 23:50:43 2010 From: paul at frixxon.co.uk (Paul Flo Williams) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 07:50:43 -0000 (GMT) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: How are the ebook files generated? In-Reply-To: <4CFD3122.8050801@perathoner.de> References: <4CFD3122.8050801@perathoner.de> Message-ID: Marcello Perathoner wrote: > On 12/06/2010 01:12 PM, Paul Flo Williams wrote: >> >> I've been hunting for details of the current conversion process on the >> Wiki, and haven't come across any concrete information about how PG does >> the conversions. Could anyone please point me to the documents or >> software >> that are used? > > The software is here: > > http://www.gutenberg.org/tools/ > > but works on Linux only (until somebody ports it). I only use Linux, thanks, though I note that it needs a newer version of Python than the v2.4 that comes with RHEL5. (Never mind, got Fedora 14 at home.) Having first generated the EPUB from HTML, do you then run kindlegen to get to the MOBI? > Also read this: > > http://www.pgdp.net/wiki/EPUB Thank you. I hadn't looked at the DP wiki, but there's lots of good stuff there. From dakretz at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 01:49:26 2010 From: dakretz at gmail.com (don kretz) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 01:49:26 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: References: <8ade4.5213a666.3a26b799@aol.com> <0E17CCBD-CD8D-4AC3-8206-ACA60A3BF280@uni-trier.de> <4CF6868A.1010104@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: This would be more convincing if even DP knew how to reliably put their ebooks on ereaders without degrading them. And then offered to do it. On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Jim Adcock wrote: > >It only proves that ease of access and a nice representation > are valued over just having the content available in archaic ASCII-formats. > > The sad thing is that many "for pay" "public domain" books on Amazon, and > on > other web sites do not even have as "nice a representation" as the epub and > mobi books on the PG site. Some of the "for pay" "public domain" books are > weak OCR efforts which have not even been corrected. Of course, with > Amazon, you can ask for your money back. But it is sad to see others take > the PG volunteers' efforts, degrade them, and then make people to pay for > them. > > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcello at perathoner.de Tue Dec 7 02:08:11 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:08:11 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: How are the ebook files generated? In-Reply-To: References: <4CFD3122.8050801@perathoner.de> Message-ID: <4CFE078B.8090407@perathoner.de> On 12/07/2010 08:50 AM, Paul Flo Williams wrote: > Having first generated the EPUB from HTML, do you then run kindlegen to > get to the MOBI? Yes. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From schultzk at uni-trier.de Tue Dec 7 02:37:51 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:37:51 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: choke-points on the internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi All, First in what way does this topic concern PG? Anyway, Since the swimmers are accepting it. Really, BB you amaze me. I would have that that the would have brought down WikiLeaks ahead of time. They knew it was coming. Cyberwarfare has been around along time. Interestingly, though they seem to be attacking the main site. Some of the European ones have been left alone. On another account, who do you think plant a virus in the iranian nuclear power plant system! regards Keith. Am 06.12.2010 um 22:35 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > i have always said that the "rich boys" who run the world > would cut off the internet if it really started to hurt them. > > but i didn't think they'd have the cajones to do it directly. > i thought they'd blame it on "terrorist hackers" instead, > and pretend that they were trying to "solve the problem", > and always just "'succeeding" enough so _they_ had access, > but the public didn't, or got it only in very sporadic bursts. > > but current events prove they won't bother with a charade. > > they're now cutting any cord they can that leads to wikileaks. > > oh sure, at first they did it with cowardly denial-of-service > attacks that they tried to lay off on anonymous individuals. > but anyone with even half a brain knew that was not true... > > it didn't take long, though, for the government to come out > and start to take direct action that was loud and aggressive. > > you probably are just as familiar with those actions as i am, > so i won't bother to recount them, except for one which you > might not have heard about: raytheon has told its employees > that they cannot read wikileaks even on their own machines > in their own homes; it'd jeopardize their security clearances. > welcome to your future, people... your boss owns your ass... > > so if you think you're gonna use the internet to take down > the repressive government you elected to run your country, > or the businessmen who really do, might wanna think again. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joshua at hutchinson.net Tue Dec 7 07:16:04 2010 From: joshua at hutchinson.net (Joshua Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:16:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books References: <65f22.5ecee909.3a28a3a1@aol.com> <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> <2011652900.94455.1291379435462.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> <4CF9498B.1010808@perathoner.de> <1781150970.18274.1291504749796.JavaMail.mail@webmail01> <20101205005347.GA3976@pglaf.org> <4CFD4732.5070807@perathoner.de> Message-ID: <816327962.152574.1291734964802.JavaMail.mail@webmail04> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Tue Dec 7 12:53:06 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:53:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: choke-points on the internet Message-ID: <120b3c.2700353a.3a2ff8b2@aol.com> keith said: > First in what way does this topic concern PG? well, if you don't understand the underlying dynamic that pits capitalist greed against the public-domain, you will have a lot of company in the general public. > On another account, who do you think > plant a virus in the iranian nuclear power plant system! the u.s. and israel working in concert, of course. and an israeli recently killed by a bomb was said to be one of their experts who had worked on that virus... i'm under the impression that all of these governments know the secrets of almost all of the other governments. so i don't think wikileaks will be revealing on _that_ level, since they already know it all. i think they're worried about wikileaks because they don't want the citizens at the bottom of the totem poles to know. because they're afraid it's going to start a global revolution against the oligarchy. and i don't think it's the governmental revelations that will be the crucial linchpin, i think it will be the revelations on the _banking_systems_, and how they engineered the recent "crisis" that gave 'em a trillion-dollar "bailout" from taxpayers. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Tue Dec 7 13:16:16 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:16:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] amazon and the public domain Message-ID: <1224a3.3ed8b28f.3a2ffe20@aol.com> i'm composing a post on how project gutenberg should approach an arrangement with amazon... but it appears that real life has just whizzed by. according to this post on morris rosenthal's site: > http://www.fonerbooks.com/selfpublishing/?p=626 amazon is not accepting public-domain e-books. after preparing and submitting a book with content in the public-domain, morris got this from amazon: > We?re implementing a new policy that addresses > the customer experience problem caused by multiple, > undifferentiated copies of public domain titles > in our Kindle catalog. > > Our vision is to have high-quality editions of every > public domain title in the world available on Kindle, > including a free edition of each, and to avoid the > confusion that is caused by having a large number of > undifferentiated (or barely differentiated) versions of each.? > > To protect the customer experience we have decided > to stop accepting and selling duplicate, undifferentiated > versions of public domain titles where there is a free edition > already available for sale.? As a result, we are removing > the following title(s) for sale on our web site: > > Charles Dickens Tale Of Two Cities > (The Works Of Charles Dickens) by Dickens, Charles, > Digital Item ID: 847429 interesting, eh? morris goes on with his own reaction: > I checked, and sure enough, Amazon published > their own free copy of the book the day before, > on December 1st 2010. > ... > I decided to check on how many classics they?ve > already published in their new push to protect > the customer experience, Here?s the complete list: > A Tale Of Two Cities by Charles Dickens > > I thought that was pretty funny too. remember when i asked whether anyone here would want project gutenberg to veto other public-domain republishers, if it were to magically be given that veto? and remember how i said consider the answer carefully? that's because the situation could also come up where project gutenberg would be the _victim_ of such a veto. and that scenario might well be coming to pass. amazon can create their own "blessed" copy of _any_ public-domain book, and then refuse to carry others. because, as far as amazon is concerned, p.g is just another one of the republishers who are creating a confusing situation, a "customer experience problem." now how does it feel? now you want to get up on a high horse and complain about how the public-domain belongs to everyone, eh? morris goes on: > Update: A Tale Of Two Cities is a new Oprah pick, > and?her people?must notify the trade beforehand? > to prepare for demand. So my guess is that Amazon?s > newfound sensitivity?will be?one-and-done. just in case you thought that the new amazon policy was brought about by the recent brouhaha with p.g., don't get a big head. there are bigger fish in the sea. much bigger fish. including a great whale called oprah. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hart at pglaf.org Tue Dec 7 13:22:55 2010 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:22:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: choke-points on the internet In-Reply-To: <120b3c.2700353a.3a2ff8b2@aol.com> References: <120b3c.2700353a.3a2ff8b2@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote: > keith said: > >?? First in what way does this topic concern PG? > > well, if you don't understand the underlying dynamic > that pits capitalist greed against the public-domain, > you will have a lot of company in the general public. Too true about the general public, much less Congress!!! [snip] > i'm under the impression that all of these governments > know the secrets of almost all of the other governments. I don't know about "all" but way more than most thinking. > so i don't think wikileaks will be revealing on _that_ level, > since they already know it all. Once in a blue moon they will come up with a smoking gun: would be nice to know who killed JFK, MLK, RFK, Vince Foster, any number of Black Panthers, etc., and many just others. Or who engineers "The Gulf Of Tonkin Incident," or did the whole "Yellow Cake Uranium" thing, etc., etc., etc. > i think they're worried about wikileaks because they don't > want the citizens at the bottom of the totem poles to know. Exactly! > because they're afraid it's going to start a global revolution > against the oligarchy. Since the current oligarchy is more entrenched than any before, this will take one hell of a global revolution. . . . How many are willing? > and i don't think it's the governmental revelations that will > be the crucial linchpin, i think it will be the revelations on > the _banking_systems_, and how they engineered the recent > "crisis" that gave 'em a trillion-dollar "bailout" from taxpayers. Yes, plus the trillions paid to "The Military Industrial Complex." Plus the trillions paid to "The Coupon Clippers". . .national bonds. And more. . .better go get Michael Moore. . . . > -bowerbird > > From schultzk at uni-trier.de Tue Dec 7 14:22:22 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:22:22 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: choke-points on the internet In-Reply-To: <120b3c.2700353a.3a2ff8b2@aol.com> References: <120b3c.2700353a.3a2ff8b2@aol.com> Message-ID: <7ABBB0C9-07E9-4BA0-80A0-957EE89C63A9@uni-trier.de> Am 07.12.2010 um 21:53 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > keith said: > > First in what way does this topic concern PG? > > well, if you don't understand the underlying dynamic > that pits capitalist greed against the public-domain, > you will have a lot of company in the general public. I do understand the dynamics. Yet, how wikiLeaks and their latest revelations are of concern to PG is beyond me. Please do not even reply. I do not really care. > > > > On another account, who do you think > > plant a virus in the iranian nuclear power plant system! > > the u.s. and israel working in concert, of course. Do you think I expect an answer! You do know what a rhetorical question is. regards Keith. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Tue Dec 7 16:07:06 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:07:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: choke-points on the internet Message-ID: <12ef50.787ae687.3a30262a@aol.com> keith said: > I do understand the dynamics. then why did you ask? > Yet, how wikiLeaks and their > latest revelations are of concern > to PG is beyond me.? then why did you say you understand the dynamics? > Please do not even reply. I do not really care. ok, you don't care. fine. i _do_ care. so i will reply. > Do you think I expect an answer! is that a question? > You do know what a rhetorical question is. is that a statement? -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From codmolly at embarqmail.com Tue Dec 7 17:16:10 2010 From: codmolly at embarqmail.com (Linda Everhart) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:16:10 -0600 Subject: [gutvol-d] amazon and the public domain Message-ID: <54F6F94C-9898-44F0-AC2E-DC8AAE9C85C4@embarqmail.com> According to the post on Rosenthal's, he got that email last Friday. I've been working on learning the Kindle store ways, so I posted a public domain book ($.99) on Sunday (that I had transcribed), and which had been earlier stolen by Amazon Digital ($2.99) and another party ($1.99). On Monday, my version was published and Amazon's ($2.99) was taken down. It's still not available at this time (Tuesday) on the search engine, but you can view my first try at: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9P8KE Please read the note at the end of the Product Description. Linda Everhart codmolly at embarqmail.com From Bowerbird at aol.com Tue Dec 7 18:15:22 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 21:15:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: amazon and the public domain Message-ID: <136cc0.c61167e.3a30443a@aol.com> linda said: > http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9P8KE congratulations! :+) > I posted a? public domain book ($.99) on Sunday > (that I had transcribed), and? which had been earlier > stolen by Amazon Digital ($2.99) and another?party ($1.99). "stolen" is a loaded term that is wholly inappropriate. you know that, right? > Please read the note at the end of the Product Description. i think it's entirely appropriate that you should inform people that you were the person who did clean-up work on this book. i would think it would also be wholly appropriate if you added that other sellers have used your version to create their own, without having done much, if any, clean-up work themselves... that's the information customers need to make a good decision. but you need to get over the idea that _you_ own this e-book... the _public_ owns it. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paulmaas at airpost.net Tue Dec 7 18:30:55 2010 From: paulmaas at airpost.net (Paul Maas) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 18:30:55 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] get password Message-ID: <1291775455.20832.1409212393@webmail.messagingengine.com> password -- Paul Maas paulmaas at airpost.net -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service From abuie at kwdservices.com Tue Dec 7 18:52:57 2010 From: abuie at kwdservices.com (Alex Buie) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 21:52:57 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <816327962.152574.1291734964802.JavaMail.mail@webmail04> References: <65f22.5ecee909.3a28a3a1@aol.com> <52e08.73806586.3a2849c1@aol.com> <2011652900.94455.1291379435462.JavaMail.mail@webmail07> <4CF9498B.1010808@perathoner.de> <1781150970.18274.1291504749796.JavaMail.mail@webmail01> <20101205005347.GA3976@pglaf.org> <4CFD4732.5070807@perathoner.de> <816327962.152574.1291734964802.JavaMail.mail@webmail04> Message-ID: I certainly would assist with reviewing/preparing as well. Alex On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Joshua Hutchinson wrote: > That's a good idea. > > I'll volunteer to review a handful by Christmas if someone can take the > time to be the organizer (I'm sorry, I'm just too busy with work to organize > the project right now). > > Josh > > > On Dec 6, 2010, *Marcello Perathoner* wrote: > > On 12/05/2010 01:53 AM, Greg Newby wrote: > > > Absolutely. We're going to try it. I'm wading through their > > paperwork... Linda plans on taking the first steps for us, but might > > want help. Maybe there can be parallel efforts... > > -- Greg > > I suggest PG opens an official account for the "Amazon Tiger Team". > > I can write a batch uploader as soon as I get access to the Amazon > backoffice. This will also batch upload metadata. > > We need a QA team to test our books on the Kindle. Maybe start with the > Top 100 on PG and Amazon and work through the entire collection. > > Then we need to redo popular books that don't work well on the Kindle. > That probably means new dumbed down editions. > > > Oh, and Google opened their shop today too. What about them? > > > -- > Marcello Perathoner > webmaster at gutenberg.org > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Wed Dec 8 02:14:39 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:14:39 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: choke-points on the internet In-Reply-To: <12ef50.787ae687.3a30262a@aol.com> References: <12ef50.787ae687.3a30262a@aol.com> Message-ID: So you are saying that wikileaks publication of US diplomatic wires are of interest to PG ! That the US is trying to do something about it is of interest about that fact is of interest to PG. C'Mon ! Quote all you want out of context. The facts remain. Yes, PG is interested in public domain books. Free internet, free speech, ... I never knew though PG is an activist group! Forget it. I am not interested in your political opinions which only have the o so slightest bearing on PG and its objectives. To say actually, none at all. regards Keith. Am 08.12.2010 um 01:07 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > keith said: > > I do understand the dynamics. > > then why did you ask? > > > > Yet, how wikiLeaks and their > > latest revelations are of concern > > to PG is beyond me. > > then why did you say you understand the dynamics? > > > > Please do not even reply. I do not really care. > > ok, you don't care. fine. i _do_ care. so i will reply. > > > > Do you think I expect an answer! > > is that a question? > > > > You do know what a rhetorical question is. > > is that a statement? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Dec 8 03:12:45 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 06:12:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: choke-points on the internet Message-ID: <1506b7.402718f.3a30c22d@aol.com> keith, i don't think that you fully understand that the u.s.a. has a 234-year tradition of free speech. that's our rock. that's what they teach in schools. a good american is one who questions authority. that might not be the case with a good german, but project gutenberg was born here in america. so the fact that our politicians are now using the power of their office and the power of law to shut down somebody who is practicing what we preach, well, that's the kind of thing that we take seriously, because it's bold and brazen in-our-faces hypocrisy. so that's the "explanation", but let me quickly add i don't feel any need to give you "an explanation". if you don't want to read my posts, i'm sure that someone here can tell you how to do a kill-file... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Wed Dec 8 05:41:14 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:41:14 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: choke-points on the internet In-Reply-To: <1506b7.402718f.3a30c22d@aol.com> References: <1506b7.402718f.3a30c22d@aol.com> Message-ID: <97CB898D-D316-4A78-951A-7E72220745CB@uni-trier.de> BB, You do not see! But, it has nothing and absolutely nothing to do with PG. Of course it my be that you think PG is going to do something that might get PG brought down. Wake up man the politicians have been screwing america for since the beginning. Everybody, knows that. At least a good american does. No need to get all reeled because you are suddenly in realization that the government can do anything they like. Some nice laws in place, that effectively takes your rights away if they place a finder on you. Big Deal. All hail BB Am 08.12.2010 um 12:12 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > keith, i don't think that you fully understand that > the u.s.a. has a 234-year tradition of free speech. > that's our rock. that's what they teach in schools. > > a good american is one who questions authority. > that might not be the case with a good german, > but project gutenberg was born here in america. > > so the fact that our politicians are now using the > power of their office and the power of law to shut > down somebody who is practicing what we preach, > well, that's the kind of thing that we take seriously, > because it's bold and brazen in-our-faces hypocrisy. > > so that's the "explanation", but let me quickly add > i don't feel any need to give you "an explanation". > > if you don't want to read my posts, i'm sure that > someone here can tell you how to do a kill-file... > > -bowerbird > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimad at msn.com Wed Dec 8 07:52:54 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 07:52:54 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <550a7.5c59e231.3a280a53@aol.com> References: <550a7.5c59e231.3a280a53@aol.com> Message-ID: >here's someone who took jim's "magic catalog" and turned it into a for-sale e-book, albeit for just $.99... Well now that's an interesting development, hadn't thought of that one -- in that I didn't distribute "Magic Catalog" under PG's "free books" license -- because it isn't one PG's "free books". From jimad at msn.com Wed Dec 8 08:04:36 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:04:36 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books References: <550a7.5c59e231.3a280a53@aol.com> Message-ID: >Well now that's an interesting development, hadn't thought of that one -- in that I didn't distribute "Magic Catalog" under PG's "free books" license -- because it isn't one PG's "free books". Well, I just checked it out and its "good news" -- the "author" doesn't actually include "Magic Catalog" in that which he calls "Magic Catalog", rather he just calls his Amazon publication "Magic Catalog" and then includes instructions on how to download the real "Magic Catalog" from my website! ;-) Of course, PG could decide to directly implement this functionality themselves -- direct action catalogs in MOBI and/or EPUB format -- which might help clear up the situation. I would be glad to have PG take this on as a useful contribution to PG readers. From jimad at msn.com Wed Dec 8 09:55:19 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:55:19 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: How are the ebook files generated? In-Reply-To: <4CFD3122.8050801@perathoner.de> References: <4CFD3122.8050801@perathoner.de> Message-ID: >Also read this: http://www.pgdp.net/wiki/EPUB This EPUB section is actually very helpful and informative -- and its existence and advice should be more widely disseminated! -- Thanks! From jimad at msn.com Wed Dec 8 10:10:34 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:10:34 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: References: <8ade4.5213a666.3a26b799@aol.com> <0E17CCBD-CD8D-4AC3-8206-ACA60A3BF280@uni-trier.de> <4CF6868A.1010104@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: >This would be more convincing if even DP knew how to reliably put their ebooks on ereaders without degrading them. And then offered to do it. In my humble experience many people who volunteer at DP, and many of us who generated "HTML" books directly for PG are working quite hard to do so in a way that will work well for EPUB and MOBI (Kindle). It doesn't help that many of the implementations of the reader software on one or another ereader reader or reader software is more or less whacked. Not that HTML browsers are that much more reliable either. And a basic problem, again, is that HTML is not well suited for describing even pretty simple things that need to be coded in ebooks. It is also not clear to me as one who codes this stuff just how much effort *should* be put into coding HTML that looks pretty on one or another ereader -- this stuff is evolving pretty darned quick now, so its not clear to me how much of this effort is really worthwhile vs. how much will be obsolete six months from now. [But the advice in the wiki EPUB article seems to be good advice in any case.] From jimad at msn.com Wed Dec 8 10:40:45 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:40:45 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <4CF6868A.1010104@xs4all.nl> References: <8ade4.5213a666.3a26b799@aol.com> <0E17CCBD-CD8D-4AC3-8206-ACA60A3BF280@uni-trier.de> <4CF6868A.1010104@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: A few thoughts: First, I would hope what PG speaks out against the practice of redistributing their efforts under DRM. Second, it's not clear to me re the issue of "authorship" of HTML by volunteers and who the "author" is on such works -- an issue which you guys might want to think about and get cleared up. Seems to me that a human-generated HTML *is* a non-trivial derivative work since the choice of HTML coding *is* a human artistic effort chosen to make the software run well on one or more ebook readers and/or HTML browsers, and as such *is* creative derivative work worthy of copyright. IE I am arguing that writing HTML is writing "software" and is not just "printer's art." Who then is the author of the HTML? Not PG. Is it a "work for hire" when nothing has been paid? *Can* PG redistribute such a work "for pay", and/or add their own headers which include the PG terms for redistribution? IE seems to me that PG is the publisher not the author of the HTML and even if a volunteers "gives" a copy to PG for redistribution it's not clear to me how this permits PG in turn to grant rights to Amazon to redistribute under other terms. This issue is not clear to me, just asking you guys to think clearly about it (as in: hire a lawyer) Certainly as a volunteer I personally would not want PG to be helping Amazon redistribute my HTML efforts under DRM in order to make a profit. This is not just an Amazon issue, the evolving issues with Google also have the potential to turn out very badly, IMHO. -- Jim From prosfilaes at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 11:13:56 2010 From: prosfilaes at gmail.com (David Starner) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:13:56 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: References: <8ade4.5213a666.3a26b799@aol.com> <0E17CCBD-CD8D-4AC3-8206-ACA60A3BF280@uni-trier.de> <4CF6868A.1010104@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: In Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Jim Adcock wrote: > *Can* PG redistribute such a work "for pay", and/or > add their own headers which include the PG terms for redistribution? Sufficiently complex HTML is copyrightable, thought whether any PG HTML reaches that level is questionable. However, anyone PPing for PG knows what they're getting into; whether legally they could object or not, it would strike me as a sleezy thing to do. -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero. From marcello at perathoner.de Wed Dec 8 11:16:50 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 20:16:50 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: References: <8ade4.5213a666.3a26b799@aol.com> <0E17CCBD-CD8D-4AC3-8206-ACA60A3BF280@uni-trier.de> <4CF6868A.1010104@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <4CFFD9A2.6050301@perathoner.de> On 12/08/2010 07:40 PM, Jim Adcock wrote: > Certainly as a volunteer I personally would not want PG to be helping Amazon > redistribute my HTML efforts under DRM in order to make a profit. DRM is optional on Amazon. Works sold by PG would have DRM turned off. The move is to preempt other rogues from selling our books for more than the minimun price and with DRM enabled, not to make any money. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Dec 8 20:10:07 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:10:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books Message-ID: <2d4ee.79e9234c.3a31b09f@aol.com> jim said: > Seems to me that a human-generated HTML > *is* a non-trivial derivative work > since the choice of HTML coding > *is* a human artistic effort chosen > to make the software run well > on one or more ebook readers > and/or HTML browsers, and as such > *is* creative derivative work worthy of copyright.? > IE I am arguing that writing HTML is writing "software" > and is not just "printer's art." it might seem that way to you... but precedent sides against you. legally, a ruling has been issued; markup is sweat, not authorship... as for d.r.m., amazon lets publishers decide on that matter for themselves. but isn't that point moot if the e-books are constantly freely available from p.g.? i understand the importance of fighting the symbolic battle, but there's no use in wasting ammunition senselessly, is there? -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Thu Dec 9 00:07:02 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:07:02 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <2d4ee.79e9234c.3a31b09f@aol.com> References: <2d4ee.79e9234c.3a31b09f@aol.com> Message-ID: <76A60C2D-3FBA-4BFB-8D5A-8380588F709E@uni-trier.de> Hi All, Markup as such is sweat. Yet, how you mark up can create and artistically unique work. The area is as many have stated grey. There may be legal precedence stating that mere markup is sweat, yet it does, in the end, depend on the individual case. Even a system that automatically does the mark-up for could qualify, as their is intellectual and artist work done in designing the system and how its output is created. Please, do not forgett that their are enough buzz words in the laws so that an objective decision is in the end is left to an individual judge or judges. Whether, in the end, it is worth it, is another matter. regards Keith. Am 09.12.2010 um 05:10 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > jim said: > > Seems to me that a human-generated HTML > > *is* a non-trivial derivative work > > since the choice of HTML coding > > *is* a human artistic effort chosen > > to make the software run well > > on one or more ebook readers > > and/or HTML browsers, and as such > > *is* creative derivative work worthy of copyright. > > IE I am arguing that writing HTML is writing "software" > > and is not just "printer's art." > > it might seem that way to you... > but precedent sides against you. > legally, a ruling has been issued; > markup is sweat, not authorship... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Fri Dec 10 14:32:23 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:32:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] a tip of a cap to the man Message-ID: it's december 10th, which i seem to remember is the birthday of michael hart's father, who is the man behind the man behind project gutenberg. so here's a tip of a cap to the shakespeare scholar. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimad at msn.com Fri Dec 10 21:02:32 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:02:32 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Free Speech, eBook Readers, and the Nobel Peace Prize Message-ID: As we complain about the Mickey Mouse copyright laws, perhaps it is time to take a moment to reflect on Free Speech, the Nobel Peace Prize, and where our beloved eBook readers are coming from: Kindle: China Nook: China Kobo: Taiwan iPad: China Samsung Galaxy Tab: Korea Sony 505: China So, most of our "freedom readers" are coming from military dictatorships where the people actually making these products do not have a choice of what they can say nor what they can read. Not sure what to do about it--given that our press has taboos that they cannot or will not talk about nowadays either. From jimad at msn.com Fri Dec 10 21:19:38 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:19:38 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: References: <8ade4.5213a666.3a26b799@aol.com> <0E17CCBD-CD8D-4AC3-8206-ACA60A3BF280@uni-trier.de> <4CF6868A.1010104@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: >Sufficiently complex HTML is copyrightable, thought whether any PG HTML reaches that level is questionable. However, anyone PPing for PG knows what they're getting into; whether legally they could object or not, it would strike me as a sleezy thing to do. I've chewed on this for a while, and I agree with you that I think anyone submitting to PG has made a reasonably informed choice to allow PG to distribute the HTML book under the terms of the PG license. Given that that license also allows anyone to strip the PG trademark and the license and then do what they want to do with that book, seems to me that also allows PG to agree to work with Apple or whoever they want to distribute the book without the PG trademark and license. The remaining problem would be if PG describes that HTML as being "public domain." Maybe it is or Maybe it isn't. And it is probably not a good thing for PG to describe a work as being "public domain" if it isn't. This all comes down to I think, whether a legal authority would decide that HTML is "Printers Art" which simply describes the layout of a printed work -- which is not copyrightable IMHO, or whether that HTML is "Computer Code" which then would be a derivative work, and the added HTML of the derivation then would remain under the copyright of the HTML coder -- even assuming that the coder did give an implied license to PG to distribute the work under the typical PG licensing agreement. Seems like the problem could be solved if the HTML coder assigned any residual rights to the HTML code to the US Government for example. Or if the HTML coder agreed explicitly that it is a work for hire. Or, whatever. But again, I Am Not A Copyright Lawyer. [And Reading about Sonny Bono gives me a headache.] [[And I hate meeces to pieces.]] From traverso at posso.dm.unipi.it Fri Dec 10 22:28:20 2010 From: traverso at posso.dm.unipi.it (Carlo Traverso) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 07:28:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: (message from Jim Adcock on Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:19:38 -0800) References: <8ade4.5213a666.3a26b799@aol.com> <0E17CCBD-CD8D-4AC3-8206-ACA60A3BF280@uni-trier.de> <4CF6868A.1010104@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <20101211062820.085CA10234@cardano.dm.unipi.it> >>>>> "Jim" == Jim Adcock writes: Jim> Seems like the problem could be solved if the HTML coder Jim> assigned any residual rights to the HTML code to the US Jim> Government for example. Or if the HTML coder agreed Jim> explicitly that it is a work for hire. Or, whatever. Surely not. This might be OK for US law, but surely would not be OK for citizens of other countries, whose laws do not allow implicit transfer of copyright and in which copyright cannot be lost. And I or many other people would strongly object to transfer any right to any government, but especially to US government. The only solution might be a publication with a different licence, for example one of the variants of Creative Commons, modified to introduce some of PG peculiarities. Carlo From joshua at hutchinson.net Sat Dec 11 05:49:22 2010 From: joshua at hutchinson.net (Joshua Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:49:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books References: <8ade4.5213a666.3a26b799@aol.com> <0E17CCBD-CD8D-4AC3-8206-ACA60A3BF280@uni-trier.de> <4CF6868A.1010104@xs4all.nl> <20101211062820.085CA10234@cardano.dm.unipi.it> Message-ID: <1117161691.15757.1292075363180.JavaMail.mail@webmail04> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richfield at telkomsa.net Sat Dec 11 11:57:20 2010 From: richfield at telkomsa.net (Jon Richfield) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 21:57:20 +0200 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: a tip of a cap to the man In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D03D7A0.90501@telkomsa.net> I think I could just about second that without reserve! On 2010/12/11 00:32 AM, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote: > it's december 10th, which i seem to remember > is the birthday of michael hart's father, who is > the man behind the man behind project gutenberg. > > so here's a tip of a cap to the shakespeare scholar. > > -bowerbird > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimad at msn.com Sat Dec 11 12:15:41 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 12:15:41 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: <2d4ee.79e9234c.3a31b09f@aol.com> References: <2d4ee.79e9234c.3a31b09f@aol.com> Message-ID: >it might seem that way to you... but precedent sides against you. legally, a ruling has been issued; markup is sweat, not authorship... OK, but can you provide a reference to that case for the rest of us who are curious? >as for d.r.m., amazon lets publishers decide on that matter for themselves. >but isn't that point moot if the e-books are constantly freely available from p.g.? Most publishers, including presumably PG, are not around "forever." Part of the point of PG, in my understanding, is to make sure good books stay alive "forever", and to do so by making them widely distributed. DRM prevents them from being widely distributed, and also it effectively asserts a copyright on something for which no copyright exists. Copyright law says that one cannot break DRM on works under copyright. It doesn't say anything about what happens if someone breaks DRM on something which is not under copyright -- not that I want to be the one to test that case! PG hasn't always been "lily white" about this issue either IMHO, trying to "pick and choose" winners and losers among vendors and distribution formats. DRM also prevents readers from making the machine choices best for them, and it prevents them from moving their personal existing "risen-to-the-public-domain" library from one machine to another. For example, perhaps a reader switches from one cellphone provider to another, and now finds that the DRM placed on his personal existing "risen-to-the-public-domain" library prevents moving it to the cellphone provided by the new carrier. So, IMHO, DRM is being used for a lot more than preventing unwarranted copying. It is also being used to try to force consumers to stay with one vendor. Which seems like the whole theme of Apple, for one example. [Not to say that I know what stuff from Apple is or is not being distributed under DRM. To find out I'd have to buy an iPad and a third-party file manager, move a "risen" eBook off of the iPad, unzip it, and take a look-see to see if the unzipped contents is DRM encrypted or not. I assume one can look inside the zip -- its just trying to decrypt any internal encrypted content that would constitute cracking.] I think the fear that Michael has, which I would concur with, is that as long as "for pay" companies can make money off of risen-to-the-public-domain, and/or "orphaned works" intermediate in term between being actively published and "risen", such as Google has now "stolen away" [by exclusive agreement with the publishers] then the "for pay" companies will more and more push to extend "limited duration" copyright to mean "forever" -- which ultimately I believe bodes very ill for "free speech" and and free society and the long-term safety of our country -- which more and more will be ruled by a small number of extremely wealthy dynasty families who buy and sell our politicians secretly at will. From hart at pglaf.org Sun Dec 12 10:50:39 2010 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:50:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: References: <2d4ee.79e9234c.3a31b09f@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Dec 2010, Jim Adcock wrote: snip > Most publishers, including presumably PG, are not around "forever." Part of > the point of PG, in my understanding, is to make sure good books stay alive > "forever", and to do so by making them widely distributed. I think the PG eBooks are out there as much "forever" as anything. . . . Our distribution is so wide that I don't think anyone, including "spook" black ops agents of the CIA, FBI, new KGB, etc., could delete them all. > DRM prevents them from being widely distributed, and also it effectively > asserts a copyright on something for which no copyright exists. Copyright > law says that one cannot break DRM on works under copyright. It doesn't say > anything about what happens if someone breaks DRM on something which is not > under copyright -- not that I want to be the one to test that case! Once the DRM is broken, the result can be put in the public domain, no matter what happens to the original cracker. > PG hasn't always been "lily white" about this issue either IMHO, trying to > "pick and choose" winners and losers among vendors and distribution formats. I don't think we have done any "pick and choose" "among vendors" or "formats." Hundreds of vendors of our eBooks are out there, and anyone who sends us a format to try out is welcome. snip From jimad at msn.com Tue Dec 14 16:28:18 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:28:18 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: References: <2d4ee.79e9234c.3a31b09f@aol.com> Message-ID: >I don't think we have done any "pick and choose" "among vendors" or "formats." I would certainly disagree with this "history." When I first approached PG several years ago about how I could support the Kindle using the MOBI file format I was told to go stuff it because PG have chosen to support this cool format called "Plucker." And then more recently PG supported "ePub" completely including table of contents -- where ePub commonly *does not* follow the standards of ODF correctly (following instead an incorrect defacto standard set up by Adobe Digital Editions) but PG did not implement table of contents correctly for Kindle even though the Kindle MOBI standard *does* correctly follow the ODF standards. So the incorrect Adobe implementation was supported but the correct Kindle implementation was not. And when I pointed this out again I was told to go stuff it. Most recently PG seems to be getting this stuff correct on Kindle, but only after a couple years delay. From hart at pglaf.org Tue Dec 14 16:58:13 2010 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael S. Hart) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:58:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Amazon charging for PG books In-Reply-To: References: <2d4ee.79e9234c.3a31b09f@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Jim Adcock wrote: > >I don't think we have done any "pick and choose" "among vendors" or > "formats." > > I would certainly disagree with this "history." When I first approached PG > several years ago about how I could support the Kindle using the MOBI file > format I was told to go stuff it because PG have chosen to support this cool > format called "Plucker." There are certainly a lot of "nay sayers" on this list, who will say nay to just about any new format proposal, but they don't really run everything, and if you send a new format to Greg Newby or myself, we'll give it a try at least 99% of the time. > And then more recently PG supported "ePub" completely including table of > contents -- where ePub commonly *does not* follow the standards of ODF > correctly (following instead an incorrect defacto standard set up by Adobe > Digital Editions) but PG did not implement table of contents correctly for > Kindle even though the Kindle MOBI standard *does* correctly follow the ODF > standards. So the incorrect Adobe implementation was supported but the > correct Kindle implementation was not. And when I pointed this out again I > was told to go stuff it. We would be more than happy to try your particular flavor of ePub, etc., just send them in. > Most recently PG seems to be getting this stuff correct on Kindle, but only > after a couple years delay. When the naysayers lose, they still often manage to delay things. . . . Greg and I are all for running anything new up the flagpole to see it work, or not, but have to send it to us, sometimes we'll even find you help. However, as with many such proposals, if nothing is sent in, nothing out. mh > > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > From john_redmond at optusnet.com.au Wed Dec 15 19:36:01 2010 From: john_redmond at optusnet.com.au (John Redmond) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:36:01 +1100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Nay Sayers Message-ID: <1292470561.1562.11.camel@john-desktop> "There are certainly a lot of "nay sayers" on this list, who will say nay to just about any new format proposal, but they don't really run everything, and if you send a new format to Greg Newby or myself, we'll give it a try at least 99% of the time." I have been following the discussion of the commercialisation of PG text, and these words have finally moved me to respond: I introduced myself to this group earlier this year, offering to become involved in styling some of the files. At the time, I had difficulty in deciding whether or not I was welcome and on one occasion I was certainly convinced that I was being patronised (yes, it was YOU, BB). I was not encouraged, but I was not deterred, either. And now suddenly the tenor of the discussions seems to have changed in light of the ereaders and the associated commercialism. I appreciate that PG wishes, quite rightly, to be accessible to all, including those who do not have the latest hardware or ereader, and that text versions are de rigeur. But there is suddenly a market for spiffed-up versions of the texts. And the money-spinners are happy to charge for them. Surely the time has come for PG to offer at least some of the books in sexier formats. EPub seems suddenly to be inevitable, though I don't like it much, and I would much prefer to distribute PDF documents. But they are inevitably bulkier! So where am I going with this. I have some Tcl scripts that will adapt existing PG text files to PDF and ePub/XHTML. And I am sure that there are many other script systems that will do the same sort of thing (yes, BB, I know about z.m.l). If something is not tried, the world will be using commercial files that would not exist if it were not for PG. And paying for them! As demonstration, look at my site (www.limpidsoft.com) where I have various versions of some 20 classics. Not mentioned on the main page, however, is a set of versions of Ivanhoe: www.limpidsoft.com/new/ivanhoe-a4.pdf www.limpidsoft.com/new/ivanhoe-a5.pdf www.limpidsoft.com/new/ivanhoe.html www.limpidsoft.com/new/ivanhoe.txt (the marked-up version) I mention this book because it demanded that I add dropcaps and notes (footnotes for PDF and endnotes for XHTML) to the scripts. The notes made processing this book significantly more complex than most of the other books. So there you are! The scripts are still in flux, but the results look encouraging. Anyone interested? John Redmond From abuie at kwdservices.com Wed Dec 15 20:38:38 2010 From: abuie at kwdservices.com (Alex Buie) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:38:38 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <1292470561.1562.11.camel@john-desktop> References: <1292470561.1562.11.camel@john-desktop> Message-ID: This looks rather interesting; I plan on looking at it in depth in the next few days. The markup kinda reminds me of SiSU, which I also thought was pretty cool. Alex On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:36 PM, John Redmond wrote: > "There are certainly a lot of "nay sayers" on this list, > who will say nay to just about any new format proposal, > but they don't really run everything, and if you send a > new format to Greg Newby or myself, we'll give it a try > at least 99% of the time." > > I have been following the discussion of the commercialisation of PG > text, and these words have finally moved me to respond: > > I introduced myself to this group earlier this year, offering to become > involved in styling some of the files. At the time, I had difficulty in > deciding whether or not I was welcome and on one occasion I was > certainly convinced that I was being patronised (yes, it was YOU, BB). > > I was not encouraged, but I was not deterred, either. And now suddenly > the tenor of the discussions seems to have changed in light of the > ereaders and the associated commercialism. I appreciate that PG wishes, > quite rightly, to be accessible to all, including those who do not have > the latest hardware or ereader, and that text versions are de rigeur. > But there is suddenly a market for spiffed-up versions of the texts. And > the money-spinners are happy to charge for them. > > Surely the time has come for PG to offer at least some of the books in > sexier formats. EPub seems suddenly to be inevitable, though I don't > like it much, and I would much prefer to distribute PDF documents. But > they are inevitably bulkier! > > So where am I going with this. I have some Tcl scripts that will adapt > existing PG text files to PDF and ePub/XHTML. And I am sure that there > are many other script systems that will do the same sort of thing (yes, > BB, I know about z.m.l). If something is not tried, the world will be > using commercial files that would not exist if it were not for PG. And > paying for them! > > As demonstration, look at my site (www.limpidsoft.com) where I have > various versions of some 20 classics. Not mentioned on the main page, > however, is a set of versions of Ivanhoe: > ? ? ? ?www.limpidsoft.com/new/ivanhoe-a4.pdf > ? ? ? ?www.limpidsoft.com/new/ivanhoe-a5.pdf > ? ? ? ?www.limpidsoft.com/new/ivanhoe.html > ? ? ? ?www.limpidsoft.com/new/ivanhoe.txt (the marked-up version) > > I mention this book because it demanded that I add dropcaps and notes > (footnotes for PDF and endnotes for XHTML) to the scripts. The notes > made processing this book significantly more complex than most of the > other books. > > So there you are! The scripts are still in flux, but the results look > encouraging. Anyone interested? > > John Redmond > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Dec 15 21:41:24 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:41:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: <268bc9.23ca6ea5.3a3b0084@aol.com> john redmond said: > and on one occasion I was certainly convinced that > I was being patronised (yes, it was YOU, BB). are you talking to me? because i reviewed the posts, and i could see any place where what i said could be accurately described as being "patronising"... (for those people who want to review the thread yourself, the subject was "getting involved", from december of 2009, commencing on december 14, one year and one day ago.) on the 26th of december, i asked you some hard questions, john, and you never responded... oh well, such is life, eh? and, from the vantage point of a year later, you're merely another xml/tei "true believer" who came -- and went -- without doing anything... and now here you come again... > (yes, BB, I know about z.m.l) oh do you now? then how about some feedback on this: > http://z-m-l.com/walha/walha.pdf that was auto-generated from this: > http://z-m-l.com/walha/walha.zml and here's the .html that was auto-generated: > http://z-m-l.com/walha/walha.html i'd also be willing to give feedback on your ivanhoe stuff. if you want any, that is. are you tough enough to take it? *** alex said: > The markup kinda reminds me of SiSU, > which I also thought was pretty cool. the links above take you to my versions of the new book by cory doctorow. cory used sisu to create his e-versions, so you can go to his site and get the output created by sisu, and compare it to mine. i believe most people will like mine. sisu is also more difficult when it comes to creating the master. which isn't to say that sisu is a bad system. it's just not the best. but you don't have to trust me... go and take a look for yourself, and then come back here and discuss your findings with me. ok? -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john_redmond at optusnet.com.au Wed Dec 15 22:33:44 2010 From: john_redmond at optusnet.com.au (John Redmond) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:33:44 +1100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <268bc9.23ca6ea5.3a3b0084@aol.com> References: <268bc9.23ca6ea5.3a3b0084@aol.com> Message-ID: <1292481224.1562.19.camel@john-desktop> Ever the pugilist, BB! I make no claim about "my way is better than your way". The view that I am trying to express is about offering more attractive versions of text, _regardless_ of how they are generated. A year ago there seemed little support for the idea, was there? Now the money-makers are doing it, so why can't PG? John The point of view On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 00:41 -0500, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote: > john redmond said: > > and on one occasion I was certainly convinced that > > I was being patronised (yes, it was YOU, BB). > > are you talking to me? > > because i reviewed the posts, and i could see any place > where what i said could be accurately described as being > "patronising"... > > (for those people who want to review the thread yourself, > the subject was "getting involved", from december of 2009, > commencing on december 14, one year and one day ago.) > > on the 26th of december, i asked you some hard questions, > john, and you never responded... oh well, such is life, eh? > > and, from the vantage point of a year later, you're merely > another xml/tei "true believer" who came -- and went -- > without doing anything... and now here you come again... > > > > (yes, BB, I know about z.m.l) > > oh do you now? then how about some feedback on this: > > http://z-m-l.com/walha/walha.pdf > > that was auto-generated from this: > > http://z-m-l.com/walha/walha.zml > > and here's the .html that was auto-generated: > > http://z-m-l.com/walha/walha.html > > i'd also be willing to give feedback on your ivanhoe stuff. > if you want any, that is. are you tough enough to take it? > > *** > > alex said: > > The markup kinda reminds me of SiSU, > > which I also thought was pretty cool. > > the links above take you to my versions of the new book > by cory doctorow. cory used sisu to create his e-versions, > so you can go to his site and get the output created by sisu, > and compare it to mine. i believe most people will like mine. > sisu is also more difficult when it comes to creating the master. > which isn't to say that sisu is a bad system. it's just not the best. > but you don't have to trust me... go and take a look for yourself, > and then come back here and discuss your findings with me. ok? > > -bowerbird > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d From sly at victoria.tc.ca Wed Dec 15 23:54:36 2010 From: sly at victoria.tc.ca (Andrew Sly) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:54:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <1292470561.1562.11.camel@john-desktop> References: <1292470561.1562.11.camel@john-desktop> Message-ID: Hmm..... I've got a few commments. On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, John Redmond wrote: > I was not encouraged, but I was not deterred, either. And now suddenly > the tenor of the discussions seems to have changed in light of the > ereaders and the associated commercialism. >From my point of view, I have not seen a sudden change. Ereaders of various types have been around, and have made use of reformatted PG texts for years. On this particular mailing list, topics may come and go, and this one has cropped up again recently. > But there is suddenly a market for spiffed-up versions of the texts. And > the money-spinners are happy to charge for them. > > Surely the time has come for PG to offer at least some of the books in > sexier formats. EPub seems suddenly to be inevitable, though I don't > like it much, and I would much prefer to distribute PDF documents. But > they are inevitably bulkier! Epub files, (and a few other formats) have been automatically generated and presented on the catalog pages for some months now. > So there you are! The scripts are still in flux, but the results look > encouraging. Anyone interested? > Many web sites take PG books and reformat them in all kinds of ways. You are welcome to do this as well. If you want to propose something to be used on gutenberg.org you probably want to talk to Marcello, the PG webmaster. --Andrew From marcello at perathoner.de Thu Dec 16 01:38:50 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:38:50 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <1292470561.1562.11.camel@john-desktop> References: <1292470561.1562.11.camel@john-desktop> Message-ID: <4D09DE2A.8050504@perathoner.de> On 12/16/2010 04:36 AM, John Redmond wrote: > Surely the time has come for PG to offer at least some of the books in > sexier formats. EPub seems suddenly to be inevitable, though I don't > like it much, and I would much prefer to distribute PDF documents. But > they are inevitably bulkier! PG has been offering EPUB for nearly 3 years. And Kindle for more than 2 years. We are also offering PDF for those producers who chose to go the TEI way. We will start offering PDF for those producers that choose the RST process. > So there you are! The scripts are still in flux, but the results look > encouraging. Anyone interested? Since you mentioned it in the subject line ... Tcl is *not* our language of choice and integrating your tcl script into our python framework will probably take longer than rewriting the interesting bits from scratch. The only thing that really interest me is your experience with PDF toolkits. Which one are you using? What can you say pro and contra it? -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Dec 16 03:00:03 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 06:00:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> john redmond said: > Ever the pugilist, BB! i don't understand why some people believe that a desire to seek best practices implies some kind of "fighter" mentality. when i say "x gives better results than y," it's not a _fight_... it's a _discussion_, one in which i've invited you to take part, by preparing the stage through the act of taking a position... so if you believe that "y gives better results than x", say so! then we can summon up the arguments for both positions, discuss them so we understand them fully, and then go on to weigh them carefully, so we arrive at the right conclusion. sounds fairly civilized to me, if i do say so myself... > The view that I am trying to express is about > offering more attractive versions of text, > _regardless_ of how they are generated. well, i'm not sure anyone here really cares much about that. i certainly haven't detected much of it in the past, and even now, i don't think that's really what is _upsetting_ to people. they're upset because someone profits off their volunteerism. but even if i'm wrong, and people really do want to offer up "more attractive versions" of the e-books, the next question -- the _very_ next question -- becomes "how do we do that?" i've looked at your system. i looked at it last december, and i looked again just now. i admire much of what you've done. it's just that i think there are other systems, including mine, which can give more benefits to end-users at less cost to p.g. and i believe that conclusion will be fairly obvious to everyone. so, you know, no fighting necessary... :+) -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From codmolly at embarqmail.com Thu Dec 16 08:21:36 2010 From: codmolly at embarqmail.com (Linda M. Everhart) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:21:36 -0600 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> Message-ID: <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> On Dec 16, 2010, at 5:00 AM, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote: > > but even if i'm wrong, and people really do want to offer up > "more attractive versions" of the e-books, the next question > -- the _very_ next question -- becomes "how do we do that?" > Gutenberg could do that by adding to the list of file types volunteers can upload, one for HTML formated especially for MOBI conversion (for those who do not have converters); and one for MOBI (for those that do). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcello at perathoner.de Thu Dec 16 08:58:10 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:58:10 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> Message-ID: <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> On 12/16/2010 05:21 PM, Linda M. Everhart wrote: > Gutenberg could do that by adding to the list of file types volunteers can > upload, one for HTML formated especially for MOBI conversion (for those who do > not have converters); and one for MOBI (for those that do). There are good reasons not to allow that: 1. The WWers are already overworked and adding more formats for them to process will not improve matters. Every change we make to the process will have to decrease human workload. Posting more formats is clearly a step in the opposite direction. 2. Maintenance of the posted files must be easy. A closed format like the Kindle cannot be edited without tools. Again, WWers cannot be expected to learn every tool required to edit every format. Every change to the process will have to simplify the task of maintaining books, not further complicate it. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From codmolly at embarqmail.com Thu Dec 16 09:29:03 2010 From: codmolly at embarqmail.com (Linda M. Everhart) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:29:03 -0600 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> Message-ID: <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> Since the WWers are already converting files to MOBI, wouldn't it be easier if they had ones that were ready? On Dec 16, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Marcello Perathoner wrote: > On 12/16/2010 05:21 PM, Linda M. Everhart wrote: > >> Gutenberg could do that by adding to the list of file types >> volunteers can >> upload, one for HTML formated especially for MOBI conversion (for >> those who do >> not have converters); and one for MOBI (for those that do). > > There are good reasons not to allow that: > > 1. > > The WWers are already overworked and adding more formats for them to > process will not improve matters. > > Every change we make to the process will have to decrease human > workload. Posting more formats is clearly a step in the opposite > direction. > > 2. > > Maintenance of the posted files must be easy. A closed format like > the Kindle cannot be edited without tools. Again, WWers cannot be > expected to learn every tool required to edit every format. > > Every change to the process will have to simplify the task of > maintaining books, not further complicate it. > > > > -- > Marcello Perathoner > webmaster at gutenberg.org > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d From grythumn at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 09:47:01 2010 From: grythumn at gmail.com (Robert Cicconetti) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:47:01 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> Message-ID: No. For two reasons: 1) Mobi is being created on the fly on the server, not by the WWers. 2) Mobi is not a human-editable format. So if a prerendered file is delivered, when changes come in, WWers would have to track down the original submitter and hope they still have the source files and proper toolchain to make the changes. R C On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Linda M. Everhart wrote: > Since the WWers are already converting files to MOBI, wouldn't it be easier > if they had ones that were ready? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From codmolly at embarqmail.com Thu Dec 16 10:17:41 2010 From: codmolly at embarqmail.com (Linda M. Everhart) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:17:41 -0600 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> Message-ID: OK, no MOBI uploads. What about HTML delivered ready for MOBI conversion? On Dec 16, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Robert Cicconetti wrote: > No. For two reasons: 1) Mobi is being created on the fly on the > server, not by the WWers. 2) Mobi is not a human-editable format. So > if a prerendered file is delivered, when changes come in, WWers > would have to track down the original submitter and hope they still > have the source files and proper toolchain to make the changes. > > R C > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Linda M. Everhart > wrote: > Since the WWers are already converting files to MOBI, wouldn't it be > easier if they had ones that were ready? > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcello at perathoner.de Thu Dec 16 10:39:04 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:39:04 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> Message-ID: <4D0A5CC8.1050309@perathoner.de> On 12/16/2010 07:17 PM, Linda M. Everhart wrote: > OK, no MOBI uploads. What about HTML delivered ready for MOBI conversion? Still one file more to juggle. Furthermore we'd have to change the posting guidelines and the software that runs the site. Up to now we accepted only one HTML per ebook. We'd have to change that into accepting: HTML HTML for EPUB HTML for Mobi HTML for eReader-sized devices HTML for iPhone-sized devices HTML for WAP devices and if you find an error in the text, you'd still have to fix all those files manually. The solution is obvious: make one simple HTML that works on *all* devices. Forget fancy formatting and concentrate of the *words*. Those render fine on all devices. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Dec 16 11:55:56 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:55:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: i said: > the _very_ next question -- becomes "how do we do that?" oh yeah, did i mention that marcello has to buy your proposal? i know what michael hart said -- and i have every reason to believe that he actually believes it is true -- but the reality of the situation is that marcello has the keys to the vault... *** linda said: > Gutenberg could do that by > adding to the list of file types volunteers can upload, > one for HTML formated especially for MOBI conversion > (for those who do not have converters); > and one for MOBI (for those that do). unlike robert, i do understand what you're saying here... but, just to be clear, you got your "those who do not" and "those who do" mixed up. but accidents happen. also, if volunteers submit an .html version that is friendly to .mobi conversion, then there's really no need to submit a .mobi version as well, since the conversion can be done automatically using the mobi-conversion-friendly .html... so there's just _one_ additional file being submitted... still, the obvious surface reaction to that is that it would create a whole bunch of extra work, both in the creation of the e-books and their maintenance (initially and long-term). even though that's an obvious reaction, it has much weight. but there is a more interesting and subtle twist underneath, one that points back to what i have been saying all along... (you knew that was coming, didn't you?) :+) specifically, there would be a huge benefit if the volunteers would upload .html files with a known underlying structure. so... what if volunteers _only_ uploaded the mobi-friendly .html? left their hand-crafted idiosyncratic .html on their hard-drive. could they do it? or would you lose your post-processors? they've been groomed to love their idiosyncratic versions... really, the ability to craft the output to your heart's desire is one of the big reasons post-processors do what they do. but the result -- .html files that are unique, like snowflakes -- means it is _impossible_ to do conversions library-wide... unless you perform the conversions using the .txt version... but that means you need to beef up the strength of those... _and_ ensure that they have the consistency that's needed... and thus we end up at what i have been saying all along... it doesn't matter how many times y'all do this little dance, you're gonna end up on my side of the argument in the end. even marcello, who resisted it -- with venom! -- for years, eventually had to relent, in order to get something to work. and if you woulda listened to me _originally,_ 7 years ago, you would have been way out ahead of the curve, so that when things like the kindle came along, you would've been ready and waiting to step into the place project gutenberg _deserves_... instead, you're still scrambling for a solution. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From prosfilaes at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 12:16:56 2010 From: prosfilaes at gmail.com (David Starner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:16:56 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <4D0A5CC8.1050309@perathoner.de> References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> <4D0A5CC8.1050309@perathoner.de> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Marcello Perathoner wrote: > The solution is obvious: make one simple HTML that works on *all* devices. > Forget fancy formatting and concentrate of the *words*. Those render fine on > all devices. Why am I not surprised; your solution is to ignore the concerns of the people you're working with and have them do it your way. No compromise is necessary, because everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero. From marcello at perathoner.de Thu Dec 16 13:08:38 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 22:08:38 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> <4D0A5CC8.1050309@perathoner.de> Message-ID: <4D0A7FD6.6080009@perathoner.de> On 12/16/2010 09:16 PM, David Starner wrote: > Why am I not surprised; your solution is to ignore the concerns of the > people you're working with and have them do it your way. No compromise > is necessary, because everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. I have to weigh not only *your* concerns but also the concerns of the WWers and *my* concerns. We don't want to end at PG like you ended at DP: with a backlog of several thousand books stuck in the queue that are proofread but cannot be posted because your PPing takes so long. My concerns are to run a website that is among the top 3000 in the US and top 6000 in the world with few people and absolutely no money. I have to manage the complexity of the software and of the underlying work process. Managing complexity means I have to say no to most proposals. If I hadn't said no a thousand times in the past, the PG web site would no longer work nor be maintenable. I'm open to all proposals to simplify and streamline and opposed to all proposals to complicate and spaghettify. If you have a proposal that addresses your concerns without increasing the workload of other people, I'd like to hear it. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From prosfilaes at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 14:45:53 2010 From: prosfilaes at gmail.com (David Starner) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:45:53 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <4D0A7FD6.6080009@perathoner.de> References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> <4D0A5CC8.1050309@perathoner.de> <4D0A7FD6.6080009@perathoner.de> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Marcello Perathoner wrote: > I have to weigh not only *your* concerns but also the concerns of the WWers > and *my* concerns. You're one person; The *your* there covers dozens of people. I'd be a lot happier if there wasn't so much weight on your concerns. > We don't want to end at PG like you ended at DP: with a backlog of several > thousand books stuck in the queue that are proofread but cannot be posted > because your PPing takes so long. Then we can take our books elsewhere. There's a bunch of places willing to host books, and if PG isn't willing to put enough weight on the needs of the largest ebook transcribers on the net, then I'm sure someone else will. > Managing complexity means I have to say no to most proposals. If I hadn't > said no a thousand times in the past, the PG web site would no longer work > nor be maintenable. It doesn't work; it comes up in German most of the time. The fact it neither comes up in English, nor uses the Accept-Language header correctly is a flaw that renders most of the other stuff pointless. It's probably connected to the reasons the most famous ebook distributor in the world is down near 6000th in the world, instead of being in the top 1000 websites. -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero. From john_redmond at optusnet.com.au Thu Dec 16 15:18:52 2010 From: john_redmond at optusnet.com.au (John Redmond) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:18:52 +1100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: <1292541532.1577.11.camel@john-desktop> BB said: "unless you perform the conversions using the .txt version... but that means you need to beef up the strength of those... _and_ ensure that they have the consistency that's needed... and thus we end up at what i have been saying all along..." I am delighted to say that I _agree_ with BB! You _must_ have a canonical text version from which all other versions derive. Even better would be a marked-up text version and a stripping script to remove all markup. The option is then there to either remove the markup or use it to generate XML, etc. Easily said, but this would require an enormous house-cleaning effort. Marcello said: "Tcl is *not* our language of choice and integrating your tcl script into our python framework will probably take longer than rewriting the interesting bits from scratch. The only thing that really interest me is your experience with PDF toolkits. Which one are you using? What can you say pro and contra it?" Tcl or Python or...? This is just detail and any porting would be simple, as the whole system pretty much floats on regular expressions. PDF toolkits: The c2xsl script uses one or more CSS-style stylesheets to generate an XSLT stylesheet. This is then used to generate LaTeX text from the XML file. This is then processed with pdflatex. John Redmond From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Dec 16 17:15:14 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:15:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: <32042.19f2b17e.3a3c13a1@aol.com> john redmond said: > I am delighted to say that I _agree_ with BB! well, don't get too delighted. because a "true believer" in xml/tei will never see eye-to-eye with me long-term. :+) but yes, i saw some promise in your message last year, where you argued in favor of the use of light-markup... the thing is, you never answered my question about what the need is for a "heavy" format, if it is merely being generated from the "light" version to start with. the light version will be easier to create, easier to store, easier to edit, easier to maintain, and easier to update... and if we just use that, there's no need to even bother with the hassle of even generating the "heavy" format. you want to start with something clean, make it dirty by obscuring it with a lot of heavy markup, and then strip away the markup later to create something clean. isn't it bloody obvious that that's going to be inefficient? *** here's an example... i took your ivanhoe .html, and slapped my c.s.s. on it... i think my version looks a lot more "pretty" than yours: > http://z-m-l.com/misc/ivanhoe-restyle.htm but that's really beside the point. our underlying markup is pretty close... the c.s.s. is just the lipstick on the pig... but why should volunteers go through all the hassles of doing your heavy markup, when they can get results that are just as pretty (or even more pretty) with light markup? and your .pdf isn't even close to being as pretty as mine. and i'll be spitting out .mobi versions and .epub versions that will also be just as pretty as yours, probably more so. and i'll be doing it with files that are easier to create and easier to maintain, store, edit, and update, which means we don't need someone with "special knowledge" to do it. because those people end up being obstacles to progress, because they want to keep on holding on to their power... and don't even let me get started on the _functionality_ of our different versions. a pretty face is nice, and all, but i'm also interested in creating _powerful_ e-books, ones that stretch what we're able to do with the content. that's why i want my text free and clear, without being weighed down by the ponderous constraints of markup. *** so let me just ask you one more question here now... how many other people -- from here -- have looked at your work as closely as i have, as demonstrated by my restyling of your .html? my guess is that no one has... i would _love_ to find out that i was wrong about that. so if anyone has studied it, please do let us know, ok? it's easy to say, "oh yeah, that's great, go ahead and do it", and then pat you on the back and send you out the door... so tell us, john, how many people from here have done that? yet i take the time and show you the respect to _examine_ your work, closely, and yet you say _i_ was "patronizing"? maybe that word means something different in australia... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john_redmond at optusnet.com.au Thu Dec 16 20:03:45 2010 From: john_redmond at optusnet.com.au (John Redmond) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:03:45 +1100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: <1292558625.1577.34.camel@john-desktop> BB said: "well, don't get too delighted. because a "true believer" in xml/tei will never see eye-to-eye with me long-term. :+) but yes, i saw some promise in your message last year, where you argued in favor of the use of light-markup... the thing is, you never answered my question about what the need is for a "heavy" format, if it is merely being generated from the "light" version to start with." We can continue to find something to agree about: Yes, your restyling of my HTML _does_ look better than mine, but primarily because you didn't use my off-the-shelf all-purpose ugly-dreadful CSS. Your (centering) treatment of the TOC is a style that I had tried and rejected (just because it didn't appeal), but these are small issues. Now the structure of the document comes from _my light markup_, with the very big qualification that, to generate the endnotes, I had to do a good deal of cutting and patching of the original text. In that respect, this was (or is) not a very typical case. So, where are we? We have used light markup, plus the patching, to structure the document. The markup _was_ light, because the style of document did not require anything more. Heavy markup? What if we have a more technical document that demands lists and tables? The markup _has_ to be heavier. Surely we can agree on that! So consider my "true belief" to be that a markup system, to be useful for a range of documents, _has_ to have some heavy options in the back cupboard. John Redmond From ke at gnu.franken.de Thu Dec 16 22:31:07 2010 From: ke at gnu.franken.de (Karl Eichwalder) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:31:07 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: (David Starner's message of "Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:45:53 -0800") References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> <4D0A5CC8.1050309@perathoner.de> <4D0A7FD6.6080009@perathoner.de> Message-ID: David Starner writes: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Marcello Perathoner > wrote: >> I have to weigh not only *your* concerns but also the concerns of the WWers >> and *my* concerns. > > You're one person; The *your* there covers dozens of people. I'd be a > lot happier if there wasn't so much weight on your concerns. I'm very happy that Marcello spends his time on this project. Thanks a million! > Then we can take our books elsewhere. There's a bunch of places > willing to host books, and if PG isn't willing to put enough weight on > the needs of the largest ebook transcribers on the net, then I'm sure > someone else will. Google is catching up. These days, their text version is very readable and that's even valid for fraktur books! BTW, there are not that many German books available from DP (even if there is a hard working and very experienced team). -- Karl Eichwalder From schultzk at uni-trier.de Thu Dec 16 23:14:47 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:14:47 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <4D0A5CC8.1050309@perathoner.de> References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> <4D0A5CC8.1050309@perathoner.de> Message-ID: <7DEDB8B7-DF09-4F58-AD47-1015239249AB@uni-trier.de> Hi Marcello, There are was to separate the The different versions in the HTML code, but it is not pretty and easier to edit, but workable. This kind of work is done daily by programs developing programs for different platforms and OS versions. One file serves all. Yes, to handle this kind of system would require a slight change in the workflow and the use of only a couple of tools whose syntax is easy enough to learn. I sympathize with your feelings. The question is if PG should develop a simple markup based on for example XHMTL to accommodate the growing interest in more appealing texts and formats. The bigger question is who is willing to spear-head the project and help retool the PG tool chain and make the move as easy as possible. At least there does seem to be an interest. regards Keith. Am 16.12.2010 um 19:39 schrieb Marcello Perathoner: > On 12/16/2010 07:17 PM, Linda M. Everhart wrote: > >> OK, no MOBI uploads. What about HTML delivered ready for MOBI conversion? > > Still one file more to juggle. > > Furthermore we'd have to change the posting guidelines and the software that runs the site. Up to now we accepted only one HTML per ebook. We'd have to change that into accepting: > > HTML > HTML for EPUB > HTML for Mobi > HTML for eReader-sized devices > HTML for iPhone-sized devices > HTML for WAP devices > > and if you find an error in the text, you'd still have to fix all those files manually. > > > The solution is obvious: make one simple HTML that works on *all* devices. Forget fancy formatting and concentrate of the *words*. Those render fine on all devices. > > > -- > Marcello Perathoner > webmaster at gutenberg.org > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Dec 16 23:29:54 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 02:29:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: <679b7.bf9532c.3a3c6b72@aol.com> john redmond said: > The markup _was_ light, because the style of > document did not require anything more. right. that's why it was not a good example text. 1.1 megabytes of mostly just plain paragraphs... that doesn't do anybody much good, not really... this is why a good developer makes a test-suite. i've had mine up for well over 5 years already... > http://www.z-m-l.com/go/test-suite.zml 36k, and it includes almost everything one can expect to encounter in the p.g. library e-books. > Heavy markup? What if we have > a more technical document > that demands lists and tables? what if we do? lists and tables are not hard... neither are footnotes/endnotes, providing that you've prepared the master-text-file correctly. (and even if you haven't, it's not _that_ hard.) > The markup _has_ to be heavier. no, it doesn't. > Surely we can agree on that! no, we can't. that's the crux of disagreement! a light-markup perspective keeps the markup nice and simple, and makes the _programming_ that interprets that markup more sophisticated. this is the major failing of the file-format lovers, including the "true believers" in x.m.l. and t.e.i. they want to put all the complexity in the format. and then they just expect that the programmers will make sense of their obtuse complications... but i come at things from the opposite direction, where the programmer provides the solution and devises a file-format that facilitates that solution. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From walter.van.holst at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 16 23:41:13 2010 From: walter.van.holst at xs4all.nl (Walter van Holst) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:41:13 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <4D0A5CC8.1050309@perathoner.de> References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> <4D0A5CC8.1050309@perathoner.de> Message-ID: <4D0B1419.8060108@xs4all.nl> On 12/16/10 7:39 PM, Marcello Perathoner wrote: > The solution is obvious: make one simple HTML that works on *all* > devices. Forget fancy formatting and concentrate of the *words*. Those > render fine on all devices. I always saw you as a proponent of TEI as a master format to generate all other formats from (an idea I still think is probably a good idea), what has changed? Regards, Walter From schultzk at uni-trier.de Thu Dec 16 23:41:49 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:41:49 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <679b7.bf9532c.3a3c6b72@aol.com> References: <679b7.bf9532c.3a3c6b72@aol.com> Message-ID: <82BD35D0-D4A2-4573-B617-0F9AB236EB31@uni-trier.de> C'Mon BB, I believe you have found the holy grail of text processing. Or at least it can not be that hard!!! Good laugh. regards Keith. Am 17.12.2010 um 08:29 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > john redmond said: > > The markup _was_ light, because the style of > > document did not require anything more. > > right. that's why it was not a good example text. > 1.1 megabytes of mostly just plain paragraphs... > that doesn't do anybody much good, not really... > > this is why a good developer makes a test-suite. > i've had mine up for well over 5 years already... > > > http://www.z-m-l.com/go/test-suite.zml > > 36k, and it includes almost everything one can > expect to encounter in the p.g. library e-books. > > > > Heavy markup? What if we have > > a more technical document > > that demands lists and tables? > > what if we do? lists and tables are not hard... > > neither are footnotes/endnotes, providing that > you've prepared the master-text-file correctly. > (and even if you haven't, it's not _that_ hard.) > > > > The markup _has_ to be heavier. > > no, it doesn't. > > > > Surely we can agree on that! > > no, we can't. that's the crux of disagreement! > > a light-markup perspective keeps the markup > nice and simple, and makes the _programming_ > that interprets that markup more sophisticated. > > this is the major failing of the file-format lovers, > including the "true believers" in x.m.l. and t.e.i. > > they want to put all the complexity in the format. > and then they just expect that the programmers > will make sense of their obtuse complications... > > but i come at things from the opposite direction, > where the programmer provides the solution and > devises a file-format that facilitates that solution. > > -bowerbird > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Dec 16 23:50:48 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 02:50:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: <20d42.5cebfe47.3a3c7058@aol.com> keith- what's your point? i mean, i can tell you're being dismissive. but i'm quite sure you don't know what you're looking at. so why don't you spell things out, so i can sort you out? -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Dec 16 23:54:53 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 02:54:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] a juicy little discussion Message-ID: <20fc7.597ab242.3a3c714d@aol.com> i'm informed there is a juicy little discussion going on in my spam folder, with people like david starner and marcello going at each other. have fun, kids; i no longer have any time for you. like i said, anyone who wants to accomplish stuff is gonna have to go through marcello, and i don't envy anyone the sheer pleasure of _that_ journey... indeed, the mere thought of the beautiful synergy of marcello working in concert with people from d.p. to create p.g. e-books to go on sale at amazon has had me giggling to myself ever since the idea arose. i'm sure that you're gonna become a _juggernaut_... i can honestly say that y'all truly deserve each other. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Dec 16 23:58:24 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 02:58:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: <211f8.6ebca4b4.3a3c7220@aol.com> keith said: > The question is if PG should develop > a simple markup based on for example XHMTL > to accommodate the growing interest > in more appealing texts and formats. > > The bigger question is who is willing to > spear-head the project and > help retool the PG tool chain and > make the move as easy as possible. > > At least there does seem to be an interest. hey! i know _exactly_ what you could do! you could set up a separate listserve, one to which i was specifically uninvited -- banned in advance! -- so that y'all could work in an uninterrupted fashion to pull off this task. yeah! _that_ would work! go for it! -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Fri Dec 17 01:58:46 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:58:46 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <20d42.5cebfe47.3a3c7058@aol.com> References: <20d42.5cebfe47.3a3c7058@aol.com> Message-ID: Oh quite the opposite is the fact. But, I am not going to lecture you on the points of formatting, marking up and down list and tables in a appealing way, not the identification of such entities in a text. You know them all to well yourself. The fact of matter remains that light mark-up will not do for appealling list or tables. Hereare some examples for your test suite: 1 T'was the night before Christmas, and all through house, not a soul was stiring, 4 not even a mouse. T'was the night before Christmas, 1 and all through house, not a soul was stiring, not even a mouse. 4 1 T'was the night before Christmas, 2 and all through house, 3 not a soul was stiring, 4 not even a mouse. regards Keith Am 17.12.2010 um 08:50 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > keith- > > what's your point? > > i mean, i can tell you're being dismissive. > > but i'm quite sure you don't know what you're looking at. > > so why don't you spell things out, so i can sort you out? > > -bowerbird > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcello at perathoner.de Fri Dec 17 02:00:29 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:00:29 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <4D0B1419.8060108@xs4all.nl> References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> <4D0A5CC8.1050309@perathoner.de> <4D0B1419.8060108@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <4D0B34BD.9050208@perathoner.de> On 12/17/2010 08:41 AM, Walter van Holst wrote: > On 12/16/10 7:39 PM, Marcello Perathoner wrote: > >> The solution is obvious: make one simple HTML that works on *all* >> devices. Forget fancy formatting and concentrate of the *words*. Those >> render fine on all devices. > > I always saw you as a proponent of TEI as a master format to generate > all other formats from (an idea I still think is probably a good idea), > what has changed? You can still send in TEI if you want, and it is my recommended format for heavy lifting. We are working on an alternative (RST) which is easier to learn and easier to write. Bur RST lacks many features, so it is capable of doing simple books only. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From marcello at perathoner.de Fri Dec 17 02:12:31 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:12:31 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> <4D0A5CC8.1050309@perathoner.de> <4D0A7FD6.6080009@perathoner.de> Message-ID: <4D0B378F.9010303@perathoner.de> On 12/16/2010 11:45 PM, David Starner wrote: > You're one person; The *your* there covers dozens of people. I'd be a > lot happier if there wasn't so much weight on your concerns. The *my* covers the concerns of 200+ K users a day. >> We don't want to end at PG like you ended at DP: with a backlog of several >> thousand books stuck in the queue that are proofread but cannot be posted >> because your PPing takes so long. > > Then we can take our books elsewhere. Before taking your books elsewhere you have to get them out of the PP queue. Good luck with that! > There's a bunch of places > willing to host books, and if PG isn't willing to put enough weight on > the needs of the largest ebook transcribers on the net, then I'm sure > someone else will. I suggest you do your own site. And I suggest you try to use the books that come out of DP for anything else besides viewing on a big desktop screen. You would be alerted to their many shortcomings then. > It doesn't work; it comes up in German most of the time. If that happens, go here: http://www.gutenberg.org/error403 and send me a copy of the page along and tell me what langiage you are seeing. > It's probably connected to the reasons the most famous ebook > distributor in the world is down near 6000th in the world, instead of > being in the top 1000 websites. It was ranked 20.000th when I started and there was no Amazon, Google books, manybooks, feedbooks, etc. then. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From schultzk at uni-trier.de Fri Dec 17 02:16:55 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:16:55 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <211f8.6ebca4b4.3a3c7220@aol.com> References: <211f8.6ebca4b4.3a3c7220@aol.com> Message-ID: <01E92088-0324-4E4F-8FCE-09759D5F957C@uni-trier.de> Ho Ho Ho OHHH, Why should I do that ? That is ban you from the list or from participating! Tis a Jolly Time for you? regards Keith. Am 17.12.2010 um 08:58 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > hey! i know _exactly_ what you could do! > > you could set up a separate listserve, one to which > i was specifically uninvited -- banned in advance! -- > so that y'all could work in an uninterrupted fashion > to pull off this task. > > yeah! _that_ would work! go for it! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcdh at freeliterature.org Fri Dec 17 03:24:31 2010 From: marcdh at freeliterature.org (Marc D'Hooghe) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:24:31 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <01E92088-0324-4E4F-8FCE-09759D5F957C@uni-trier.de> References: <211f8.6ebca4b4.3a3c7220@aol.com> <01E92088-0324-4E4F-8FCE-09759D5F957C@uni-trier.de> Message-ID: This is BB and th babbling Geese 2010/12/17 Keith J. Schultz > Ho Ho Ho OHHH, > > Why should I do that ? That is ban you from the list or > from participating! > > Tis a Jolly Time for you? > > regards > Keith. > > > > Am 17.12.2010 um 08:58 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > > hey! i know _exactly_ what you could do! > > you could set up a separate listserve, one to which > i was specifically uninvited -- banned in advance! -- > so that y'all could work in an uninterrupted fashion > to pull off this task. > > yeah! _that_ would work! go for it! > > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > -- Marc Freeliterature.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From codmolly at embarqmail.com Fri Dec 17 05:33:50 2010 From: codmolly at embarqmail.com (Linda M. Everhart) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:33:50 -0600 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <20d42.5cebfe47.3a3c7058@aol.com> References: <20d42.5cebfe47.3a3c7058@aol.com> Message-ID: Would it be too hard to tag works, as they are added, that were produced to stand up to the conversion process? A checkbox, or simply an explanation, on the submission form? If these works are tagged now, it might save time in the future, when all this has been settled. From marcello at perathoner.de Fri Dec 17 06:07:37 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:07:37 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: References: <20d42.5cebfe47.3a3c7058@aol.com> Message-ID: <4D0B6EA9.9060501@perathoner.de> On 12/17/2010 02:33 PM, Linda M. Everhart wrote: > Would it be too hard to tag works, as they are added, that were produced > to stand up to the conversion process? A checkbox, or simply an > explanation, on the submission form? > > If these works are tagged now, it might save time in the future, when > all this has been settled. I don't quite see what advantage that would give us? Please explain. Wouldn't it be easier to tag those works you *don't* want converted? Maybe a meta tag in the HTML file? Note that if you provide a custom EPUB for your book, it will not generate an EPUB. eg. These books have custom EPUBs provided by the producer: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30735 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30751 Note also that these books don't have Kindle editions. That is because kindlegen chokes on those custom EPUBs. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From Bowerbird at aol.com Fri Dec 17 11:07:43 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:07:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: walter said: > I always saw you as a proponent of TEI as > a master format to generate all other formats from > (an idea I still think is probably a good idea), > what has changed? marcello changed his mind for one big and obvious reason -- he needed some _real_ results, and t.e.i. wasn't working. t.e.i. is far too difficult and far too costly, so it can only be used in the situations where you have lots of captive labor, examples being prisons, or corporations, or government... but if you have to stand up to the requirements of having a cost-efficient workflow, especially one with _volunteers_, you will need something that minimizes the costs involved. this has always been true. people like marcello and walter ignored it for a long time. but you can't ignore it forever. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Fri Dec 17 11:20:58 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:20:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: keith said: > Why?should I do that ? That is ban you from the list that was a wink at the sordid history of this listserve. some time back, the pack-who-always-attacked-me became such a victim of its own group-think that it actually convinced itself that _i_ was the only reason that t.e.i. wouldn't work, like my mere presence had some kind of magical force that rendered t.e.i. moot. they tried to ban me here, but michael wouldn't have it. so they decided that if they set up a listserve elsewhere, and banned me from it in advance, they would succeed bringing about the great solution that i was subverting, and create the t.e.i. workflow project gutenberg needed. in other words, they were saying pretty much exactly what you proposed, keith. this was about 6 years ago. so they actually created that listserve. it went nowhere. this listserve has been repeating its own history forever. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gbnewby at pglaf.org Fri Dec 17 15:08:46 2010 From: gbnewby at pglaf.org (Greg Newby) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:08:46 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <7DEDB8B7-DF09-4F58-AD47-1015239249AB@uni-trier.de> References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> <4D0A5CC8.1050309@perathoner.de> <7DEDB8B7-DF09-4F58-AD47-1015239249AB@uni-trier.de> Message-ID: <20101217230846.GC8252@pglaf.org> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 08:14:47AM +0100, Keith J. Schultz wrote: > The question is if PG should develop a simple markup based on for example XHMTL to > accommodate the growing interest in more appealing texts and formats. > > The bigger question is who is willing to spear-head the project and help retool the PG > tool chain and make the move as easy as possible. > > At least there does seem to be an interest. > > regards > Keith. I thought this was announced on gutvol-d, but maybe not or it it was missed. There is a major initiative going on (though a small crew is doing most of the work) to set up an ePub processing chain at DP and to PG (the whitewasher's tool chain). Here's some good info about it: http://www.pgdp.net/wiki/EPUB There are various threads on DP forums about it, too. As Marcello mentioned in another post, RST is the markup, and it seems to be good for lots of content (not a panacea). Ultimately, I expect we'll have a mixture of hand-generated ePubs and auto-converted, with varying HTML. While this won't be a single master source (something that I, too, have wished for), it will result in more capable formats for a wider variety of devices than our existing tool chain is amenable to. -- Greg From Bowerbird at aol.com Fri Dec 17 15:49:23 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:49:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: <823a0.16cc27cb.3a3d5103@aol.com> greg said: > RST is the markup, and > it seems to be good for lots of content > (not a panacea).? so project gutenberg has finally adopted a light-markup system... r.s.t. is not the best choice, but at least you're in the right ballpark. so we can officially call this date "bowerbird was correct all along". took you guys long enough to realize; it's been, what, 7 years now. anyway, you knew it was coming: _i_told_you_so._ -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Fri Dec 17 15:50:25 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:50:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] bowerbird was correct all along Message-ID: <82454.66ebcfd8.3a3d5141@aol.com> greg said: > RST is the markup, and > it seems to be good for lots of content > (not a panacea).? so project gutenberg has finally adopted a light-markup system... r.s.t. is not the best choice, but at least you're in the right ballpark. so we can officially call this date "bowerbird was correct all along". took you guys long enough to realize; it's been, what, 7 years now. anyway, you knew it was coming: _i_told_you_so._ -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john_redmond at optusnet.com.au Fri Dec 17 18:28:25 2010 From: john_redmond at optusnet.com.au (John Redmond) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:28:25 +1100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: <1292639305.1562.7.camel@john-desktop> Greg said: "As Marcello mentioned in another post, RST is the markup, and it seems to be good for lots of content (not a panacea). " For what it's worth, I can happily live with that. More importantly, PG has a context for moving forward. I'm not at all sure that I can be useful in the move, but I'm here if needed. Go well, PG! From schultzk at uni-trier.de Fri Dec 17 23:37:30 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 08:37:30 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi BB, I am aware of your misfortunes. I am also fully aware of there and back again. Yet, your suggestion that I might even think of banning someone, and in light of your remarks towards me as possibly not being a "good America" or just being a "good German" and further more implication of me not being for "free speech" seems to form a pattern. Whether intensional or not, it does not matter. P.G. seems to be working on something new. At least it is a move in the right direction. regards Keith. Am 17.12.2010 um 20:20 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > keith said: > > Why should I do that ? That is ban you from the list > > that was a wink at the sordid history of this listserve. > > some time back, the pack-who-always-attacked-me > became such a victim of its own group-think that it > actually convinced itself that _i_ was the only reason > that t.e.i. wouldn't work, like my mere presence had > some kind of magical force that rendered t.e.i. moot. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Sat Dec 18 00:35:56 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 03:35:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: <98576.7284577.3a3dcc6c@aol.com> keith- were you part of the pack who attempted to ban me back then? i honestly cannot remember, but i don't think so. still, there are plenty of people who are still here who _were_ a part of that pack, and who would _still_ ban me if they could, and they know full well who they are, and i know full well too, and they are the people at whom that message was targeted... if the shoe fits, wear it. if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. it's really that simple. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Sat Dec 18 06:54:26 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:54:26 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers In-Reply-To: <98576.7284577.3a3dcc6c@aol.com> References: <98576.7284577.3a3dcc6c@aol.com> Message-ID: <66F32F4E-DA95-4291-A801-DFB9A5D70B58@uni-trier.de> I definitely was not! Well, you responded to my message and quoted me, which makes me a recipient. We agree, disagree and have many differences. Yet, one always has the possibility to find some aspect or angle one has not thought of. Just pointing out, you were doing me wrong, way wrong. Back to business. regards Keith. Am 18.12.2010 um 09:35 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > keith- > > were you part of the pack who attempted to ban me back then? > > i honestly cannot remember, but i don't think so. > > still, there are plenty of people who are still here who _were_ > a part of that pack, and who would _still_ ban me if they could, > and they know full well who they are, and i know full well too, > and they are the people at whom that message was targeted... > > if the shoe fits, wear it. if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. > > it's really that simple. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Sat Dec 18 12:23:02 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:23:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: Nay Sayers Message-ID: <1f399e.5176dff3.3a3e7226@aol.com> keith said: > I definitely was not! all right, then, good. that means the shoe doesn't fit, which means you don't have to wear it. > Well, you responded to my message and quoted me, > which makes me a recipient. there were many recipients who weren't targets, and the targets, by and large, have no doubt who they are. > Just pointing out, you were doing me wrong, way wrong. then you should point out that the shoe doesn't fit, which means that you are not going to wear it... so i am glad you have done that. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Sat Dec 18 13:15:38 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:15:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly Message-ID: <1f7048.5a49f9c0.3a3e7e7a@aol.com> i don't get over to the d.p. forums very often these days, so i didn't realize they started rolling out their notice on the shift to restructured-text last saturday, december 11th. i also didn't know this initiative was so far along, in that two r.s.t. e-books are already mounted (december 16th): > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34654 > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34605 here's my r.s.t. summary: the good, the bad, and the ugly. *** _restructured-text_at_project_gutenberg_ _the_good_ project gutenberg is officially using a light-markup format! _the_bad_ the implementation uptake at d.p. will likely be _very_slow_... _the_ugly_ this change proves that it is now marcello making p.g. policy. *** i'll elaborate on this summary in the coming days... in the meantime... as you can imagine, over the many years, i have been an advocate of light-markup all over cyberspace, so now i can go out and tell the world that project gutenberg has finally endorsed my position and is using light-markup! of course, this leaves considerable egg on the faces of people like walter, who -- just last december 26th -- posted that i was a "hopeless fool" and that my proposals for light-markup were "fundamentally impossible". looks like you were wrong, walter. way wrong. way way wrong. even marcello has given it all up. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From codmolly at embarqmail.com Sat Dec 18 14:19:44 2010 From: codmolly at embarqmail.com (Linda M. Everhart) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:19:44 -0600 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly In-Reply-To: <1f7048.5a49f9c0.3a3e7e7a@aol.com> References: <1f7048.5a49f9c0.3a3e7e7a@aol.com> Message-ID: <4F4FA42B-64C8-4AF9-B563-C875FDB3005E@embarqmail.com> I read the instructions how to make rst, and downloaded the .rst books bowerbird listed. My Calibre won't convert them, my browser won't open them. What are they supposed to work with? Linda M. Everhart codmolly at embarqmail.com On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote: > i don't get over to the d.p. forums very often these days, > so i didn't realize they started rolling out their notice on > the shift to restructured-text last saturday, december 11th. > > i also didn't know this initiative was so far along, in that > two r.s.t. e-books are already mounted (december 16th): > > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34654 > > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34605 > > here's my r.s.t. summary: the good, the bad, and the ugly. > > *** > > > _restructured-text_at_project_gutenberg_ > > > _the_good_ > > project gutenberg is officially using a light-markup format! > > > _the_bad_ > > the implementation uptake at d.p. will likely be _very_slow_... > > > _the_ugly_ > > this change proves that it is now marcello making p.g. policy. > > *** > > i'll elaborate on this summary in the coming days... > > in the meantime... as you can imagine, over the many years, > i have been an advocate of light-markup all over cyberspace, > so now i can go out and tell the world that project gutenberg > has finally endorsed my position and is using light-markup! > > of course, this leaves considerable egg on the faces of people > like walter, who -- just last december 26th -- posted that i was > a "hopeless fool" and that my proposals for light-markup were > "fundamentally impossible". looks like you were wrong, walter. > way wrong. way way wrong. even marcello has given it all up. > > -bowerbird > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajhaines at shaw.ca Sat Dec 18 15:01:21 2010 From: ajhaines at shaw.ca (Al Haines) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:01:21 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly In-Reply-To: <4F4FA42B-64C8-4AF9-B563-C875FDB3005E@embarqmail.com> Message-ID: <0CB4426D5B1D45FB8D11DBC31BB3718C@alp2400> The RST files can be opened with any UTF-8 capable editor--SCUnipad, Windows Notepad, MS Word, etc. (I can't speak to Mac software.) If you click on the reStructuredText link, you should get a prompt to open or save the file. You may have to set up an association of the .rst extension with the editor of your choice. They're meant only as a master file from which other formats are generated--plain text, HTML, epub, etc, etc. They are not an end-user ebook format. BTW--it's probably more accurate to say that PG doesn't actually _use_ formats. Ebook producers (DP, independents) _use_ formats--PG decides which ones it will accept for posting. That's how I see it, anyway--dissenters can argue among themselves. Al -----Original Message----- From: gutvol-d-bounces at lists.pglaf.org [mailto:gutvol-d-bounces at lists.pglaf.org] On Behalf Of Linda M. Everhart Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 2:20 PM To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly I read the instructions how to make rst, and downloaded the .rst books bowerbird listed. My Calibre won't convert them, my browser won't open them. What are they supposed to work with? Linda M. Everhart codmolly at embarqmail.com On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote: i don't get over to the d.p. forums very often these days, so i didn't realize they started rolling out their notice on the shift to restructured-text last saturday, december 11th. i also didn't know this initiative was so far along, in that two r.s.t. e-books are already mounted (december 16th): > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34654 > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34605 here's my r.s.t. summary: the good, the bad, and the ugly. *** _restructured-text_at_project_gutenberg_ _the_good_ project gutenberg is officially using a light-markup format! _the_bad_ the implementation uptake at d.p. will likely be _very_slow_... _the_ugly_ this change proves that it is now marcello making p.g. policy. *** i'll elaborate on this summary in the coming days... in the meantime... as you can imagine, over the many years, i have been an advocate of light-markup all over cyberspace, so now i can go out and tell the world that project gutenberg has finally endorsed my position and is using light-markup! of course, this leaves considerable egg on the faces of people like walter, who -- just last december 26th -- posted that i was a "hopeless fool" and that my proposals for light-markup were "fundamentally impossible". looks like you were wrong, walter. way wrong. way way wrong. even marcello has given it all up. -bowerbird _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Sat Dec 18 15:13:50 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 00:13:50 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: bowerbird was correct all along In-Reply-To: <82454.66ebcfd8.3a3d5141@aol.com> References: <82454.66ebcfd8.3a3d5141@aol.com> Message-ID: Wait a minute BB, You first proposed using zml! At that time and from the beginning of PG I have always suggested using a markup language! I proposed using LaTeX or similar syntax! You had advised me then to set up such a system to prove the pudding! I get bragging rights before you do and an apology! ?? I do not need bragging rights. You should not forget your history. regards Keith Am 18.12.2010 um 00:50 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > greg said: > > RST is the markup, and > > it seems to be good for lots of content > > (not a panacea). > > so project gutenberg has finally adopted a light-markup system... > > r.s.t. is not the best choice, but at least you're in the right ballpark. > > so we can officially call this date "bowerbird was correct all along". > took you guys long enough to realize; it's been, what, 7 years now. > > anyway, you knew it was coming: _i_told_you_so._ > > -bowerbird > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From codmolly at embarqmail.com Sat Dec 18 15:57:19 2010 From: codmolly at embarqmail.com (Linda M. Everhart) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:57:19 -0600 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly In-Reply-To: <0CB4426D5B1D45FB8D11DBC31BB3718C@alp2400> References: <0CB4426D5B1D45FB8D11DBC31BB3718C@alp2400> Message-ID: Al, sorry I didn't explain that well. I can open the rst files, and read them with all the markup, but I don't know what to use to convert them into something usable like html or mobi. Someone point me to a webpage that explains this. I'd like to learn more about it. Linda M. Everhart codmolly at embarqmail.com On Dec 18, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Al Haines wrote: > The RST files can be opened with any UTF-8 capable editor--SCUnipad, > Windows Notepad, MS Word, etc. (I can't speak to Mac software.) If > you click on the reStructuredText link, you should get a prompt to > open or save the file. You may have to set up an association of > the .rst extension with the editor of your choice. > > They're meant only as a master file from which other formats are > generated--plain text, HTML, epub, etc, etc. They are not an end- > user ebook format. > > > BTW--it's probably more accurate to say that PG doesn't actually > _use_ formats. Ebook producers (DP, independents) _use_ formats--PG > decides which ones it will accept for posting. That's how I see it, > anyway--dissenters can argue among themselves. > > Al > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gutvol-d-bounces at lists.pglaf.org [mailto:gutvol-d-bounces at lists.pglaf.org > ] On Behalf Of Linda M. Everhart > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 2:20 PM > To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion > Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and > the ugly > > I read the instructions how to make rst, and downloaded the .rst > books bowerbird listed. My Calibre won't convert them, my browser > won't open them. What are they supposed to work with? > > Linda M. Everhart > codmolly at embarqmail.com > > > > On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote: > >> i don't get over to the d.p. forums very often these days, >> so i didn't realize they started rolling out their notice on >> the shift to restructured-text last saturday, december 11th. >> >> i also didn't know this initiative was so far along, in that >> two r.s.t. e-books are already mounted (december 16th): >> > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34654 >> > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34605 >> >> here's my r.s.t. summary: the good, the bad, and the ugly. >> >> *** >> >> >> _restructured-text_at_project_gutenberg_ >> >> >> _the_good_ >> >> project gutenberg is officially using a light-markup format! >> >> >> _the_bad_ >> >> the implementation uptake at d.p. will likely be _very_slow_... >> >> >> _the_ugly_ >> >> this change proves that it is now marcello making p.g. policy. >> >> *** >> >> i'll elaborate on this summary in the coming days... >> >> in the meantime... as you can imagine, over the many years, >> i have been an advocate of light-markup all over cyberspace, >> so now i can go out and tell the world that project gutenberg >> has finally endorsed my position and is using light-markup! >> >> of course, this leaves considerable egg on the faces of people >> like walter, who -- just last december 26th -- posted that i was >> a "hopeless fool" and that my proposals for light-markup were >> "fundamentally impossible". looks like you were wrong, walter. >> way wrong. way way wrong. even marcello has given it all up. >> >> -bowerbird >> _______________________________________________ >> gutvol-d mailing list >> gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org >> http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajhaines at shaw.ca Sat Dec 18 16:20:57 2010 From: ajhaines at shaw.ca (Al Haines) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:20:57 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <34A2CE0C3F3B495BB29502500D8A49C1@alp2400> Google "restructuredtext" (no quotes, all lower case, one word). You'll get a bunch of hits--the ones starting with "docutils..." are RST's home pages (as it were). That's about as far as I can take you. -----Original Message----- From: gutvol-d-bounces at lists.pglaf.org [mailto:gutvol-d-bounces at lists.pglaf.org] On Behalf Of Linda M. Everhart Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 3:57 PM To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly Al, sorry I didn't explain that well. I can open the rst files, and read them with all the markup, but I don't know what to use to convert them into something usable like html or mobi. Someone point me to a webpage that explains this. I'd like to learn more about it. Linda M. Everhart codmolly at embarqmail.com On Dec 18, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Al Haines wrote: The RST files can be opened with any UTF-8 capable editor--SCUnipad, Windows Notepad, MS Word, etc. (I can't speak to Mac software.) If you click on the reStructuredText link, you should get a prompt to open or save the file. You may have to set up an association of the .rst extension with the editor of your choice. They're meant only as a master file from which other formats are generated--plain text, HTML, epub, etc, etc. They are not an end-user ebook format. BTW--it's probably more accurate to say that PG doesn't actually _use_ formats. Ebook producers (DP, independents) _use_ formats--PG decides which ones it will accept for posting. That's how I see it, anyway--dissenters can argue among themselves. Al -----Original Message----- From: gutvol-d-bounces at lists.pglaf.org [mailto:gutvol-d-bounces at lists.pglaf.org] On Behalf Of Linda M. Everhart Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 2:20 PM To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly I read the instructions how to make rst, and downloaded the .rst books bowerbird listed. My Calibre won't convert them, my browser won't open them. What are they supposed to work with? Linda M. Everhart codmolly at embarqmail.com On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote: i don't get over to the d.p. forums very often these days, so i didn't realize they started rolling out their notice on the shift to restructured-text last saturday, december 11th. i also didn't know this initiative was so far along, in that two r.s.t. e-books are already mounted (december 16th): > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34654 > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34605 here's my r.s.t. summary: the good, the bad, and the ugly. *** _restructured-text_at_project_gutenberg_ _the_good_ project gutenberg is officially using a light-markup format! _the_bad_ the implementation uptake at d.p. will likely be _very_slow_... _the_ugly_ this change proves that it is now marcello making p.g. policy. *** i'll elaborate on this summary in the coming days... in the meantime... as you can imagine, over the many years, i have been an advocate of light-markup all over cyberspace, so now i can go out and tell the world that project gutenberg has finally endorsed my position and is using light-markup! of course, this leaves considerable egg on the faces of people like walter, who -- just last december 26th -- posted that i was a "hopeless fool" and that my proposals for light-markup were "fundamentally impossible". looks like you were wrong, walter. way wrong. way way wrong. even marcello has given it all up. -bowerbird _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gbnewby at pglaf.org Sat Dec 18 19:41:18 2010 From: gbnewby at pglaf.org (Greg Newby) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 19:41:18 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly In-Reply-To: <1f7048.5a49f9c0.3a3e7e7a@aol.com> References: <1f7048.5a49f9c0.3a3e7e7a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20101219034118.GB24134@pglaf.org> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 04:15:38PM -0500, Bowerbird at aol.com wrote: > _the_ugly_ > > this change proves that it is now marcello making p.g. policy. Absolute rubbish. While I cannot take credit for the technical solution, nor for the hard work of the handful of people who have done the investigation into different approaches for by-hand and auto-generated ePubs and other output files, I do know all about how this initiative was started. It was started during the DP board telecon on November 13. Find the minutes here: http://www.pgdp.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=44456 The policy of PG, such that it is, is a policy of "yes." See, for example, http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Administrivia_by_Michael_Hart But the DP board, and the WWers, recognized that there would need to be a focused effort to bring about changes in the DP->PG workflow for ePub. The initiative is, in a nutshell, to do the work needed to identify this new workflow. Then, the DP board and whitewashers and PPVers and other stakeholders will tune and adopt. This is the sort of top-down plus bottom-up approach that I like to see. Top-down, the DP board (of which I am a member) saw the need, and I was able to employ my dual role with the WWers to help encourage people to work on the initiative. Bottom up, we have lots of interest & input from people who produce eBooks, from those who manage the DP infrastructure, and others. In short, there is massive buy-in to this effort, and the discussion on gutvol-d and the DP forums leaves no doubt as to the community interest in the initiative. Whether there is buy-in to the solution remains to be seen, but so far it looks very good. -- Greg PS: I don't want to downplay Marcello's contribution to this. He's one of the handful mentioned above, and has done a lot of great work to move things forward. He's part of the team. From Bowerbird at aol.com Sat Dec 18 20:52:54 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:52:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: bowerbird was correct all along Message-ID: <5ff95.48c7417c.3a3ee9a6@aol.com> keith said: > You first proposed using zml! well, i suggested that z.m.l. was the best format to use, because it was molded from the existing pg-text format. and it would still be the best one to use, for that reason. many p.g. text-files are _already_ z.m.l. files in disguise. but i often said that other light-markup systems would be almost as good. the one i would usually recommend was markdown, because it's now supported quite widely. but i also suggested ascii-doc, and restructured-text... ascii-doc is used lots of places, and restructured-text has been the format that python uses for documentation. and there is also wiki-formatting, like wikipedia uses, which means that lots of people are familiar with that. what you will see if you look at these systems closely is that many of them are not as "light" as they could be... they essentially require you to learn a _new_ markup... the next thing you will notice is that they are not geared specifically to the special and unique needs of e-books... which means you have to formulate some workarounds... it was with those two observations in mind, therefore, that i developed the approach that i used with z.m.l., which is yet another reason why it'd be the best choice. but, you know, p.g. will do what marcello wants it to, as he's in the power position where he can block stuff. and since marcello wants to use r.s.t., p.g. will use r.s.t. > I proposed using LaTeX or similar syntax! latex is most definitely _not_ light-markup. sorry, keith. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sly at victoria.tc.ca Sat Dec 18 21:20:04 2010 From: sly at victoria.tc.ca (Andrew Sly) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:20:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly In-Reply-To: References: <0CB4426D5B1D45FB8D11DBC31BB3718C@alp2400> Message-ID: Hmm... the whole idea is that different formats are created automatically on the PG server, so that you don't have to. I've just taken a quick look on the discussion thread at DP to see if Marcello provided links to the software he is using, but I would not find any. I have the impression that the implementation being used for PG is not finalized yet, and is still a work in progress. But you might find some useful information here: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html It looks like you may need to install Python to use it. --Andrew On Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Linda M. Everhart wrote: > Al, sorry I didn't explain that well. I can open the rst files, and > read them with all the markup, but I don't know what to use to convert > them into something usable like html or mobi. Someone point me to a > webpage that explains this. I'd like to learn more about it. > > Linda M. Everhart > codmolly at embarqmail.com > > From gbnewby at pglaf.org Sun Dec 19 00:02:30 2010 From: gbnewby at pglaf.org (Greg Newby) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 00:02:30 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly In-Reply-To: References: <0CB4426D5B1D45FB8D11DBC31BB3718C@alp2400> Message-ID: <20101219080230.GA30448@pglaf.org> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 09:20:04PM -0800, Andrew Sly wrote: > Hmm... the whole idea is that different formats are created automatically > on the PG server, so that you don't have to. Not exactly. The idea of the investigation is to find out under what conditions we can have conversion from a master format without human intervention, and get good results. I don't think anyone believes there is a single master format that will work for all situations (at least, with all the caveats and variations we've identified, not least of which is the DP and PG toolset & workflow). More likely, we'll end up with a continuing need for hand-crafted files in various formats, plus a variety of auto-conversions. > I've just taken a quick look > on the discussion thread at DP to see if Marcello provided links to the > software he is using, but I would not find any. The current auto-converter software is out there somewhere, but I don't have the URL in front of me. I'm sure there will be new software at DP, for the WWers, and at gutenberg.org, assuming things keep moving forward as they have been. -- Greg > I have the impression that > the implementation being used for PG is not finalized yet, and is still a > work in progress. > > But you might find some useful information here: > http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html > > It looks like you may need to install Python to use it. > > --Andrew > > On Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Linda M. Everhart wrote: > > > Al, sorry I didn't explain that well. I can open the rst files, and > > read them with all the markup, but I don't know what to use to convert > > them into something usable like html or mobi. Someone point me to a > > webpage that explains this. I'd like to learn more about it. > > > > Linda M. Everhart > > codmolly at embarqmail.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d From schultzk at uni-trier.de Sun Dec 19 00:57:40 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 09:57:40 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: bowerbird was correct all along In-Reply-To: <5ff95.48c7417c.3a3ee9a6@aol.com> References: <5ff95.48c7417c.3a3ee9a6@aol.com> Message-ID: Hi BB, We been there and back again as Tolkien said. I have look at RST and it is not as light as one may think. LaTeX proper is yes a heavy and powerful system. If you can remember my proposal was not to use LaTex to its full potential for markup just use the a minimal subset. RST is exactly that! I can do the same with LaTeX and keep the readabilty on the same level. Furthermore I had said use the syntax or tags. Simple and clear to use. All that would be needed was a utility to parse the file and create the other formats. This is the approach being taken NOW. After 10 or more years. RST is extensiable so that they can add special needs. What has to be avoided is that they have strict guidelines which everybody conforms to. TEI had went the over way and became to convoluted to the extend that it is not that useful. According to what Greg has said in another post they are going down the path which I have always advocated. Which is a very good idea. At least we can say they have learned their lesson. How well time will tell! regards Keith. Am 19.12.2010 um 05:52 schrieb Bowerbird at aol.com: > keith said: > > You first proposed using zml! > > well, i suggested that z.m.l. was the best format to use, > because it was molded from the existing pg-text format. > and it would still be the best one to use, for that reason. > many p.g. text-files are _already_ z.m.l. files in disguise. > [snip, snip] > > I proposed using LaTeX or similar syntax! > > latex is most definitely _not_ light-markup. sorry, keith. > > -bowerbird > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcello at perathoner.de Sun Dec 19 04:53:58 2010 From: marcello at perathoner.de (Marcello Perathoner) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 13:53:58 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly In-Reply-To: <4F4FA42B-64C8-4AF9-B563-C875FDB3005E@embarqmail.com> References: <1f7048.5a49f9c0.3a3e7e7a@aol.com> <4F4FA42B-64C8-4AF9-B563-C875FDB3005E@embarqmail.com> Message-ID: <4D0E0066.9050305@perathoner.de> On 12/18/2010 11:19 PM, Linda M. Everhart wrote: > I read the instructions how to make rst, and downloaded the .rst books bowerbird > listed. My Calibre won't convert them, my browser won't open them. What are they > supposed to work with? You are supposed to run them past the PG converter, which is called EpubMaker (for historical reasions). It runs on python, so you'll have to install that first. Caveat emptor: While theoretically it can run everywhere python runs, it has been tried out on linux only, so far. You can find the sources here: http://www.gutenberg.org/tools/ -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster at gutenberg.org From Bowerbird at aol.com Sun Dec 19 13:54:21 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:54:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: bowerbird was correct all along Message-ID: <8a5b.7bdf16f5.3a3fd90d@aol.com> keith said: > At least we can say they have learned their lesson. i wish i could say that. but i don't think they've learned anything. they only decided to put some real clothes on their t.e.i. emperor because the real world had started to demand some real results... so marcello had no choice but to change his mind. in that mind, though, he is still king, and all the other people are just subjects. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Bowerbird at aol.com Sun Dec 19 14:10:19 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:10:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly Message-ID: <9478.23aa9387.3a3fdccb@aol.com> greg said: > Absolute rubbish. say whatever you want, greg. the record is crystal-clear. i've been suggesting light-markup for 7 years here. _7_. the idea went nowhere, officially. and i was subjected to constant attack by the wolf-pack, until i showed emphatically that i would not be a victim, and demonstrated conclusively that my system worked. and still my idea went nowhere, officially. marcello decided to support r.s.t., and 6 months later, it's now p.g. policy. that pretty much speaks for itself. and you want to pass this off as some "coincidence"? what, do you think we are all _blind_, or something? you've been manipulated, and you don't even realize it. as for d.p. being the brains behind this, that's a _laugh_. roger is just about the only one with any authority there who doesn't have a head full of straw for his brains... and yes, roger has contributed, but it's only because he came to realize that marcello is the linchpin with power, and unless roger bowed down and kissed marcello's ring, roger wasn't going anywhere, no matter how good his stuff. *** but hey, don't get the impression that i am complaining! i am _loving_ this situation. you are now "on the team" with the guy who has had to eat the opinion he had been advising as your desired course of action for a long 7 years. and most of the ordinary players on that team are people who your advisor has pissed off along the way, and they are volunteers, so they can walk away scott free any time. meanwhile, the real world is still demanding real results... so this is gonna be fun to watch... :+) -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimad at msn.com Mon Dec 27 21:01:51 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:01:51 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] eReader 2010 sales figures In-Reply-To: References: <26ea96.4684992c.3a3b4b33@aol.com> <72DF38FC-C1DB-4991-A7A2-66BDACF11A26@embarqmail.com> <4D0A4522.80906@perathoner.de> <1AF8D068-F96B-47F4-84B8-D433F4D1F30E@embarqmail.com> <4D0A5CC8.1050309@perathoner.de> Message-ID: Financial Mags are reporting end-of-year total 2010 eReader Sales: Kindle 8 Million iPad 7 Million Nook 2 Million maybe Samsung Galaxy Tablet 600,000 units globally Sony Reader ??? From jimad at msn.com Mon Dec 27 22:11:04 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:11:04 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly In-Reply-To: <4F4FA42B-64C8-4AF9-B563-C875FDB3005E@embarqmail.com> References: <1f7048.5a49f9c0.3a3e7e7a@aol.com> <4F4FA42B-64C8-4AF9-B563-C875FDB3005E@embarqmail.com> Message-ID: > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34654 > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34605 IF one actually looks at the quality of the above resulting EPUB and Mobi actually generated by this approach, one would see why RST and other txt based approaches make many of us book submitters so unhappy! HTML and therefore EPUB sucks as a method for coding books -- but even then the results end up looking better than this RST! I would suggest instead of "standardizing" on RST instead "standardize" on EPUB for the input submission format, and move to EPUB3 when that comes out. Txt70 and HTML formats can be "easily" downconverted from EPUB rather than trying to guess info that isn't there when trying to move from Txt70 to EPUB and Mobi. EPUB would ideally be extended by PG conventions to cover issues that come up frequently when trying to encode books to fairly represent the Author's and/or Publisher's intent. > [quote: re "just encoding the words of an author"] I can't find that email again, but, "just encoding the words of an author" works great if the author's book "just" consists of a string of words. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a book, but I assume some exist -- representing an author "just" encoding a purely aural tradition presumably. I was thinking that Rudyard Kipling's "The Jungle Book" might be such a book "encoding a purely aural tradition", but, now that I've looked it up the answer is NO: Not even "The Jungle Book" is simply an encoding of a "string of words." The Story "The Blue Hotel" from Stephen Crane's "The Monster" comes close to being simply an aural encoding -- but even there the author cannot help but include some visual representations in his book that do not have an aural equivalent -- it's NOT just "a string of words." If I might be so bold as to try to more correctly state the job of a "modern" contributor to PG: To encode, as simply but as accurately as possible, the intent of the original author and/or publisher, in a way that can be as correctly represented as possible, on the greatest number of display devices as possible of actual people who want to read PG texts, and to the extent possible also predict the future so that future customers can also so enjoy PG texts. And do this while minimizing the download and storage size of the resulting downloadable file so that the customers can actually store and read the book on their reader devices. In practice how much of the submitters job is "just encoding the words of an author"? In my experience one is lucky if "just encoding the words of an author" represents even half the total amount of time and effort one puts into a PG book submission. Every time a submission requires more than one file -- and PG requires at least three such submissions per book -- the more chances there are for things to get screwed up -- and they DO get screwed up! When the encoding language doesn't match the common job of representing the things one commonly actually finds in real world common books, then things WILL surely get screwed up! Txt70 and RST being a case in point as being too weak. HTML and therefore EPUB being both too weak AND too rich [too permissive whilst at the same time not having the common elements to encode those things one commonly finds in real books] And further, in the real world PG contributors need submission formats that have ACTUAL not THEORETICAL good "authoring" tools AND good rendering tools, so that they can see in advance what their efforts are going to look like on real world customers' reader displays. From abuie at kwdservices.com Tue Dec 28 06:13:05 2010 From: abuie at kwdservices.com (Alex Buie) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:13:05 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly In-Reply-To: References: <1f7048.5a49f9c0.3a3e7e7a@aol.com> <4F4FA42B-64C8-4AF9-B563-C875FDB3005E@embarqmail.com> Message-ID: I don't see any problem with either of these books in their mobi versions, at least. What is it you're referring to? I guess the one comment I'd make is that the PG Header cruft could be formatted better, but other than that, I have no problems. I think the biggest benefit to using RST is that it leads to _uniformity_, which is something that at least I personally would like to see. What parts of RST make it too weak for you? On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Jim Adcock wrote: >> ? http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34654 > ? ? ? ?> ? http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34605 > > IF one actually looks at the quality of the above resulting EPUB and Mobi > actually generated by this approach, one would see why RST and other txt > based approaches make many of us book submitters so unhappy! From gbnewby at pglaf.org Tue Dec 28 08:47:58 2010 From: gbnewby at pglaf.org (Greg Newby) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 08:47:58 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly In-Reply-To: References: <1f7048.5a49f9c0.3a3e7e7a@aol.com> <4F4FA42B-64C8-4AF9-B563-C875FDB3005E@embarqmail.com> Message-ID: <20101228164758.GC5751@pglaf.org> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:11:04PM -0800, Jim Adcock wrote: > > > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34654 > > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34605 > > IF one actually looks at the quality of the above resulting EPUB and Mobi > actually generated by this approach, one would see why RST and other txt > based approaches make many of us book submitters so unhappy! > ... Alex asked the same question that I had: please describe what you see as the shortcomings or limitations of those books. Either as displayed in HTML or ePub or Mobi. I looked at all of them, also text. I didn't see problems. I've also looked at the RST (which is reminiscent of LaTeX, to me). TIA. -- Greg From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Dec 29 17:20:26 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 20:20:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] just so we're clear Message-ID: <18a32.802dae2.3a4d385a@aol.com> let me fill you in on my up-and-coming timetable, ok? *** sometime after the first of the year, i will be releasing a software tool to the public. i have decided it is time. the tool is aimed at writers who wanna self-publish... it will help them convert the book they have written -- and formatted as a z.m.l. file -- into a variety of output formats, including .pdf and .html to start off. .epub and .mobi/kindle are the next likely targets... the tool lets them control various conversion aspects, such as font, fontsize, leading, margins, and so on... *** but of course readers can use this converter-tool too. providing that they possess the digital text for a book, they'll be able to convert that book to various outputs. this means they'll be able to _customize_ the output to their own personal preferences, as to the font, fontsize, colors, margins, leading, justification, pagesize, etc. they'll be able to do this with project gutenberg e-texts. so it doesn't really matter what kind of output that p.g. offers, because your readers will be able to use my tool to customize their own output to their own preferences. but hey, knock yourselves out, ok? > http://jaguarps.com -bowerbird p.s. i also wrote up a piece a while back discussing how project gutenberg should go about selling on amazon... but instead of sharing it here, now, and having greg tell all of us sometime down the line how it was all his idea, i'm gonna post it somewhere, and point to it later, when i can say "i would have told you so, but you never asked, but these are all of the things i think you did incorrectly." we'll see how much of it greg can come up with when he doesn't get the benefit of some hints in advance from me. (not that greg, or any of the people over at d.p., have been smart enough to use my ideas as i've presented them; they always wanted to introduce their own ripples, which were inevitably something that would cause the thing to misfire. but let's see how well they can do without _any_ scaffolding.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From schultzk at uni-trier.de Tue Dec 28 00:24:52 2010 From: schultzk at uni-trier.de (Keith J. Schultz) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:24:52 +0100 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly In-Reply-To: References: <1f7048.5a49f9c0.3a3e7e7a@aol.com> <4F4FA42B-64C8-4AF9-B563-C875FDB3005E@embarqmail.com> Message-ID: <6B1ED31C-DF07-4590-83D1-1EBC97ADBD85@uni-trier.de> In a Nut shell. the task is impossible! To many factors which are opposing. The optimal solution would be then a facsimile or the book itself. Yet, only if one considers the printed book as the true intent of the author. The problem is age old, not only in the digital world. One of the oldest "encodings" is TeX(DVI) as a device independent representation. Then there was and is PDF. HTML, EPUB, MOBI and whatever you throw into the lot are all created with a purpose in mind and therefore will never meet your criteria. All make compromises which in the end render them suboptimal. Yet, the problem is not only the problem of the encoding itself, but lies in the devices themselves. As proof of concept consider books for young children: large type face. there is no way that can be properly displayed on the small screens that most ereaders have today. at least not in a pleasing manner. regards Keith. Am 28.12.2010 um 07:11 schrieb Jim Adcock: > > > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34654 > > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34605 > > IF one actually looks at the quality of the above resulting EPUB and Mobi > actually generated by this approach, one would see why RST and other txt > based approaches make many of us book submitters so unhappy! > > HTML and therefore EPUB sucks as a method for coding books -- but even then > the results end up looking better than this RST! > > I would suggest instead of "standardizing" on RST instead "standardize" on > EPUB for the input submission format, and move to EPUB3 when that comes out. > Txt70 and HTML formats can be "easily" downconverted from EPUB rather than > trying to guess info that isn't there when trying to move from Txt70 to EPUB > and Mobi. EPUB would ideally be extended by PG conventions to cover issues > that come up frequently when trying to encode books to fairly represent the > Author's and/or Publisher's intent. > >> [quote: re "just encoding the words of an author"] > > I can't find that email again, but, "just encoding the words of an author" > works great if the author's book "just" consists of a string of words. I'm > not sure I've ever seen such a book, but I assume some exist -- representing > an author "just" encoding a purely aural tradition presumably. I was > thinking that Rudyard Kipling's "The Jungle Book" might be such a book > "encoding a purely aural tradition", but, now that I've looked it up the > answer is NO: Not even "The Jungle Book" is simply an encoding of a "string > of words." The Story "The Blue Hotel" from Stephen Crane's "The Monster" > comes close to being simply an aural encoding -- but even there the author > cannot help but include some visual representations in his book that do not > have an aural equivalent -- it's NOT just "a string of words." > > If I might be so bold as to try to more correctly state the job of a > "modern" contributor to PG: > > To encode, as simply but as accurately as possible, the intent of the > original author and/or publisher, in a way that can be as correctly > represented as possible, on the greatest number of display devices as > possible of actual people who want to read PG texts, and to the extent > possible also predict the future so that future customers can also so enjoy > PG texts. And do this while minimizing the download and storage size of the > resulting downloadable file so that the customers can actually store and > read the book on their reader devices. > > In practice how much of the submitters job is "just encoding the words of an > author"? In my experience one is lucky if "just encoding the words of an > author" represents even half the total amount of time and effort one puts > into a PG book submission. > > Every time a submission requires more than one file -- and PG requires at > least three such submissions per book -- the more chances there are for > things to get screwed up -- and they DO get screwed up! When the encoding > language doesn't match the common job of representing the things one > commonly actually finds in real world common books, then things WILL surely > get screwed up! Txt70 and RST being a case in point as being too weak. > HTML and therefore EPUB being both too weak AND too rich [too permissive > whilst at the same time not having the common elements to encode those > things one commonly finds in real books] > > And further, in the real world PG contributors need submission formats that > have ACTUAL not THEORETICAL good "authoring" tools AND good rendering tools, > so that they can see in advance what their efforts are going to look like on > real world customers' reader displays. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d at lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d From Bowerbird at aol.com Thu Dec 30 13:03:54 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:03:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly Message-ID: <10504c.1f5d2a55.3a4e4dba@aol.com> keith said: > In a Nut shell. the task is impossible! well, jim never said why he felt the current examples fall short of what he'd like to see as optimal output... but the task surely isn't "impossible"... i don't particularly like the look of the current examples, but in terms of their structural aspects, they're just fine. the problem is, d.p. recruited its current postprocessors with a lure of "you can make the book look how you like", instead of concentrating on a library that's interoperable. consequently, the books that came out of d.p. are like snowflakes, each of them exhibiting different patterns, with far too much emphasis on cloning the original look. unlike marcello, who is insensitive to the book esthetics, the postprocessors are too-finely attuned to the unique aspects of a book. it'll be hard to find common ground. neither side seems all that interested in common sense. one side controls the files; the other side controls labor. and i cannot see either side giving up their crown jewels. but there's nothing inherently difficult in the task itself, and certainly nothing that would make it "impossible"... the preponderance of pages in the preponderance of books are pages full of paragraphs of justified text, where indents are the most fancy formatting you see. hardly "impossible". -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimad at msn.com Fri Dec 31 11:42:21 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:42:21 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly In-Reply-To: <20101228164758.GC5751@pglaf.org> References: <1f7048.5a49f9c0.3a3e7e7a@aol.com> <4F4FA42B-64C8-4AF9-B563-C875FDB3005E@embarqmail.com> <20101228164758.GC5751@pglaf.org> Message-ID: Sorry, just back from a trip. The Kindle stuff all comes out left aligned when chapter titles, images, etc ought to be centered. The EPUB stuff all comes run-together with no vertical whitespace or other "reasonable" indication of paragraph breaks. >I looked at all of them, also text. I didn't see problems. I've >also looked at the RST (which is reminiscent of LaTeX, to me). TIA. From jimad at msn.com Fri Dec 31 12:23:45 2010 From: jimad at msn.com (Jim Adcock) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:23:45 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly In-Reply-To: <6B1ED31C-DF07-4590-83D1-1EBC97ADBD85@uni-trier.de> References: <1f7048.5a49f9c0.3a3e7e7a@aol.com> <4F4FA42B-64C8-4AF9-B563-C875FDB3005E@embarqmail.com> <6B1ED31C-DF07-4590-83D1-1EBC97ADBD85@uni-trier.de> Message-ID: >In a Nut shell. the task is impossible! Nonsense. Many DP books and many independently produced books on PG are written (HTML) in a way that they may be very successfully read on many many machines, including EPUB and Mobi machines. Also, the EPUB and MOBI generated automatically from txt70 for the older files on PG is often also pretty good, given the constraints. But, other books are not good, and some of the tools proposed for PG are not good. For "impossible" substitute "some just really don't care." Certainly creating an automated tool to do a good job on 100% of all books IS an "impossible" task. From Bowerbird at aol.com Fri Dec 31 15:21:56 2010 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 18:21:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [gutvol-d] Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly Message-ID: jim said: > Certainly creating an automated tool > to do a good job on 100% of all books > IS an "impossible" task. i'm so sick and tired of the righteous repetition of this... haven't any of you heard of "successive approximation"? i suggest we might introduce some new thinking in 2011. -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: