|
| From: | martin-kemp |
| Subject: | [Texmacs-dev] Free Software needs Free Documentation |
| Date: | Sun, 20 Jun 2021 04:34:31 +0200 (CEST) |
From: TeXmacs <texmacs@lix.polytechnique.fr>
To: texmacs-dev@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Texmacs-dev] Free Software needs Free Documentation
Date: 20/06/2021 02:38:32 Europe/Paris
Hi Martin,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 12:27:09AM +0200, martin-kemp@brusseler.com wrote:
> > No, this is optional in French law, but not recommended,
> > since any potential error in the translation would be on me.
>
> > For similar reasons, the GNU GPL is not translated in other languages,
> > even though programs covered by this license are used in countries
> > where English is not the native tongue.
>
> This is problematic, because the working environment has changed so much
> in the last four decades. Today, we live in a market economy of global reach.
>
> In this regard, I shall comment on the service of legal documents in France.
> The service persuant to The Hague Service Convention of 1965, requires forms
> in English or French, with many forms available in bilingual formats.
>
> I know that French Authorities are reluctant to accept forms completed in English only,
> but a French Translation is acceptable, even if the translation is not certified.
>
> If liability of error in translation is on you, it would be a good enough reason
> to dump the publisher.
Well, I am the publisher. This is because I had precise ideas about
how I wanted things to be printed and existing publishers could not do that.
Once again: the book as a physical object matters to me. I also considered
several auto-editing platforms. They also tend to propose suboptimal print
quality, not to speak about abusive terms by Amazon and similar services.
So I directly contacted an online printer and I do the sales myself.
But this also means that I have to be careful about legal aspects.
I am not a lawyer, so I prefer to avoid potential problems that
might be due to translation issues. But I don't believe that
this will be a major issue for most buyers. A more frequent
complaint is that some people simply find the book too expensive.
But I don't think that it is more expensive than similar books.
--------
M*
If you look at the cost of a textbook at university level, it is usually between about
$20 to $30. Take for example Linear Algebra by Gilbert Strang, it is about $24.
And "Proofs from The Book" dedicated to the mathematician Paul Erdos is $40.
It could be acceptable for an academic, but for a college student, could they pay
$60 for one book on texmacs. I don't think so. In addition you hold all the rights.
There are many dissenting views on the current state of copyright law or copyright
as a concept.
People could buy a digital book at a reasonable price so they can write a presentation
with TeXmacs. People can still support your effort on TeXmacs in as a small way they
can. Traditional university curricula do not provide suitable training and knowledge is
primarily concentrated within industrialised countries - which is a shame.
I hope in a few years there could be a book with a free documentation license at a good
price. We’ve known for a long time that high textbook prices create a lose-lose choice for
students.
--------
> If I want to look into buying your book, I need to know
> the terms, in the language it was written. I understand French myself and I know
> it is not a good deal for me. So I will not read the book.
That is not a problem. Most information is in the integrated manual anyway.
---------
M*
If the physical book is there to support you and for those that like a beautiful physical book,
rather than emanating from deficiencies in the integrated manual, this situation could be stated.
In the website
https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/welcome.en.html
the book seems to be marketed in a different way - as "your guide to GNU TeXmacs".
----------
> How much do you get from each book?
Too early to tell.
> I do not find any benefit in doing important work in spare time because
> many institutional administrators are so uneducated about what we do.
> The drive to change this has to be advocated by ourselves.
That is true, but it can be very tiring.
> I also have had serious fallouts with state institutions whose administrators
> have a grasping attitude towards software and knowledge, viewing them only
> as ways of income generated through the toil of others, rather than as public
> service.
This is also a problem indeed.
> > As to scientific publications, I am against your costly suggestion
> > for open access publications. There is a much simpler solution
> > that I apply for all my research papers and books:
> > make them freely accessible on your webpage and
> > on preprint servers. I also did so for my manuals on
> > TeXmacs and Mathemagix by the way.
>
> There was an error on my part. We do not need publisher today.
> Their prices are reason enough to eradicate them.
I am afraid that this is only partially happening.
Institutions like the open access idea, so this might actually
be imposed on us in the future. There will be people who can
pay for it and second class scientists who will only be able
to publish in journals of lower status. Note also that
colleagues on editorial boards sometimes get paid,
which sometimes makes them less eager to change the system.
--------
M*
I am myself a first class scientist at an age where chasing journals
to give me status sounds foolish and pointless.
I have had my education in london and paris, but do not plan to work there
along superiors who started throwing people overboard long time ago. A
great friend of mine - Ludvig Faddeev - said the same thing about having to
work along Lev Landau.
Instead I advocate post publication review as rationalised to me by Grigori Perelman
years ago.
You can read the about the misfortune of the Euler Institute in St Petersburg -
although in russian.
http://faddeev.com/en/%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BA-%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B3-%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2-%D0%BE-%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%83-%D0%B8%D0%BD/
--------
> The problem is not so much about payment for a book you wrote. I can
> understand that, but book on software have the tendency to change
> the dynamics of the discussion quite frequently than books of literature.
For sure, it is important to also have free documentation. The purpose
of the book is not as a replacement for the integrated documentation
we have, but rather as a complementary "nice to have book object" and
something that people can cite and/or buy to support me.
For integrated documentation on TeXmacs, my next priority is to make
the documentation more contextual, like the automatically generated
documentation on tags. We should have more of that (available
keyboard shortcuts in a given mode, related topics, etc.).
We also need more other types of documentation,
like tutorials and videos.
To say things differently: the book form is probably suboptimal
for integrated documentation, which again explains why I see
my book on TeXmacs as something fairly complementary
(rather than a substitute for good integrated documentation).
> And if you had the copyright you would be able to release it for public
> use in a few years time. Books tend to became insignificant in profitability
> after around two or three years. Have talked with many people, including
> academics
This is indeed something that I will consider.
--------
M*
Thank you so very much
--------
Best regards, --Joris
_______________________________________________
Texmacs-dev mailing list
Texmacs-dev@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |