[TOS] Textbook: author attribution
jwildebo at redhat.com
Wed Mar 24 18:26:52 UTC 2010
Attribution is always a pain. Ted Nelson tried to solve it in a way that
should have been defining, but alas ...
I would definitely ask those that have been remixed. Inform them that we
used their texts and how we plan to credit them. If s/o disagrees or wants
it different - respect them and act accordingly.
As author I would be very interested to learn who is re-using my content.
This feedback-cycle might even help in creating better content as authors
might have valuable updates, corrections.
----- Original Message -----
From: tos-bounces at teachingopensource.org
<tos-bounces at teachingopensource.org>
To: Matthew Jadud <mjadud at allegheny.edu>
Cc: tos at teachingopensource.org <tos at teachingopensource.org>
Sent: Wed Mar 24 14:21:42 2010
Subject: Re: [TOS] Textbook: author attribution
For what it is worth, as someone who has not contributed directly to
the text, but have encouraged authors to reuse our content, I fully
agree with Matt.
If our content has been reused we expect attribution for the
contribution and an appropriate link back to the original work.
Sent from my mobile device.
On 24 Mar 2010, at 17:30, "Matthew Jadud" <mjadud at allegheny.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:28, Greg DeKoenigsberg <gdk at redhat.com>
>> We have, however, borrowed gigantic chunks. Is attributing the
>> authors of
>> these chunks in the body of the text sufficient, or do they deserve
>> co-authorship status? Would they even want that?
>> Attribution clauses leave a ridiculous amount of room for
> If you borrow and edit a large chunk of someone else's text, are you
> an "author?" Were they an "co-author" of the book?
> I think, when borrowing, you should acknowledge the lift at the end of
> the chapter where the borrowing took place, and perhaps duplicate that
> in an overall ack at the end of the text. This acknowledges their
> contribution, but they are not directly a contributor to the new,
> unique work that the book you're writing represents. Therefore, I
> don't think they would be "co-authors" in the traditional sense. (Yes,
> this isn't "traditional," but at some point you might want an ISBN,
> and you don't want librarians to have a brain hemmorage when you try
> and put something on them that doesn't fit Dublin Core. They will make
> it fit, regardless of any new ideas you throw at them...)
> I would leave "co-authors" of the text to mean "people who contributed
> *directly* to the assembly of the artifact you are calling a book." If
> there are people who don't fit the title of author, add a Colophon a
> la many O'Reilly texts, where you acknowledge the editors, anyone who
> does design work on the book, the tools used, etc. I don't think that
> the re-use of CC-licensed text necessarily means that the original
> author had any creative input into The Work that the new
> book/article/etc. represents.
> When you freeze and go to SVN, I'll be glad to provide editing
> support, if you want someone to do a front-to-back read of the text.
> I'm on spring break, and can break free a few hours to go straight
> through. Username "jadudm" is preferred for SVN, if this is desired in
> the next day or two.
> tos mailing list
> tos at teachingopensource.org
tos mailing list
tos at teachingopensource.org
More information about the tos