ANN: Programmierung in Ruby 
Author Message
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby

The translation of *Programming Ruby* by Dave Thomas and Andy Hunt is
finished --- and better than the (online) original including all the
tables and figures (I hope thet it is all). Look at
http://www.*-*-*.com/

Die Uebersetzung von *Programming Ruby* von Dave Thomas und Andy Hunt
ist fertig --- und besser als das (Online-) Original, weil
(hoffentlich) alle Tabellen und Bilder drin sind. Siehe
http://www.*-*-*.com/

Viel Spass beim Lesen
und meldet euch, wenn ihr noch Fehler oder fehlende Sachen findet.

Juergen Katins



Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:07:13 GMT  
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby

Quote:
> The translation of *Programming Ruby* by Dave Thomas and Andy Hunt is
> finished --- and better than the (online) original including all the
> tables and figures (I hope thet it is all). Look at
> http://home.vr-web.de/juergen.katins/ruby/buch/

I think it will be nice if we can get incorporate the figures into the
English edition at rubycentral. I notice that the figures are currently in
German, but they should be useful for reference even for English audience.

--
All the best,
Maverick Woo



Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:45:45 GMT  
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby

Quote:

> The translation of *Programming Ruby* by Dave Thomas and Andy Hunt is
> finished --- and better than the (online) original including all the
> tables and figures (I hope thet it is all). Look at
> http://home.vr-web.de/juergen.katins/ruby/buch/

I'd also like to see english versions of the figures. Are the *.jpg are
created from some more "sensible" format and if so are those files
available anywhere? (Couldn't see anything but jpegs for the figures in
the ZIP file.)

Something completely unrelated: I was abit surprised by the license on
the translation. Does the OPL allow this transition to a GNU Free
Documentation License?

Oh, and the link under "Das Projekt" to convert.xsl seems dead.

Sehr gut. :-)

--
(\[ Kent Dahl ]/)_    _~_    __[ http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~kentda/ ]___/~
 ))\_student_/((  \__d L b__/  NTNU - graduate engineering - 4. year  )
( \__\_?|?_/__/ ) _)Industrial economics and technological management(
 \____/_?_\____/ (____engineering.discipline_=_Computer::Technology___)



Mon, 01 Nov 2004 04:50:13 GMT  
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby

Quote:

> I'd also like to see english versions of the figures. Are the *.jpg are
> created from some more "sensible" format and if so are those files
> available anywhere? (Couldn't see anything but jpegs for the figures in
> the ZIP file.)

The figures are all produced by pstricks in LaTeX. Unfortunately the
code I wrote to convert the{*filter*}to XML couldn't handle the pstricks
stuff,and I didn't want to go though and do it all manually.

Quote:
> Something completely unrelated: I was abit surprised by the license on
> the translation. Does the OPL allow this transition to a GNU Free
> Documentation License?

I was surprised too... :)

Dave



Mon, 01 Nov 2004 05:59:26 GMT  
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby

Quote:

> I'd also like to see english versions of the figures. Are the *.jpg are
> created from some more "sensible" format and if so are those files
> available anywhere? (Couldn't see anything but jpegs for the figures in
> the ZIP file.)

I am sorry but there are no "sensible" formated files for the *.jpg
files. I created them with a simple paint program. I extracted
figure12.1.jpg from the cvs sources.
figure15.1.jpg to figure15.4.jpg, figure17.1.jpg, figure19.1.jpg to
figure19.4.jpg, figure26.1.jpg, figure26.1.jpg, figure3.1.jpg,
figureA.1.jpg, and figureA.1.jpg are pure english, you can adopt them
unchanged. In the rest of the figures there are only few german words.
It should be simple to replace them.

Quote:
> Oh, and the link under "Das Projekt" to convert.xsl seems dead.

I inserted the figures in the xml files as <img> tags. I added code to
convert. xsl to convert these <img> tags to html file references. Oh,
and convert.xsl is online again, I got some problems with this shit
WinNT inserting capital letters automatically (and not even showing
it).

Quote:
> Something completely unrelated: I was abit surprised by the license on
> the translation. Does the OPL allow this transition to a GNU Free
> Documentation License?

I am no license expert but I understand the OPL as "Do whatever you
want with this document". You could even redistribute it as part of a
non free book. Even more the translation of a book creates an own new
copyright owned by the translator (who must however have the license
to translate).

Thank you for your comments.

Juergen Katins



Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:28:51 GMT  
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby

Quote:

> I am no license expert but I understand the OPL as "Do whatever you
> want with this document". You could even redistribute it as part of a
> non free book. Even more the translation of a book creates an own new
> copyright owned by the translator (who must however have the license
> to translate).

The OPL does have some openings for restrictions, including stoping you
from printing non-free hardcopies. I haven't seen the license following
the online version of Programming Ruby applying any of these
restrictions, but it is still possible that this was the intent of AWL
when releasing. Sure, we could argue that these intents have not been
properly labeled in the usage of the OPL license and that they would not
apply anyway since this clearly is a derived work, but these are the
kind of things ulcers are made of.
I am no lawyer, but I do have an impression that intent and
interpretation is the name of the lawyer-game.

NorwayRUG are planning to get the (still very pending) norwegian
translation into print, sometime in the future. As I was reading the OPL
before meeting with a potential publisher, I was rather surprised that
AWL hadn't utilized the restriction VI.B, as I know I would have, if I
was AWL.

Dave and Andrew, would it be an idea to add a healthy dose of paranoia
and present these two cases for AWL to get a clear statement? I don't
think this will blow up in our faces, but better safe than sorry.

--
(\[ Kent Dahl ]/)_    _~_    __[ http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~kentda/ ]___/~
 ))\_student_/((  \__d L b__/  NTNU - graduate engineering - 4. year  )
( \__\_?|?_/__/ ) _)Industrial economics and technological management(
 \____/_?_\____/ (____engineering.discipline_=_Computer::Technology___)



Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:14:13 GMT  
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby

Quote:


> > Something completely unrelated: I was abit surprised by the license on
> > the translation. Does the OPL allow this transition to a GNU Free
> > Documentation License?

> I am no license expert but I understand the OPL as "Do whatever you
> want with this document". You could even redistribute it as part of
> a non free book. Even more the translation of a book creates an own
> new copyright owned by the translator (who must however have the
> license to translate).

I want to go on record as objecting to this. I don't know about the
legality of changing the license: it strikes me as being wrong, in
that by doing so the original license holder has potentially lost
rights.  My interpretation of the OPL is that it works like the GPL:
the original owner gets to set the licensing terms

     The Open Publication works may be reproduced and distributed in
     whole or in part, in any medium physical or electronic, provided
     that the terms of this license are adhered to, and that this
     license or an incorporation of it by reference (with any options
     elected by the author(s) and/or publisher) is displayed in the
     reproduction.

The OPL does not say "do what you want with this material," any more
than the GPL does.

I have asked privately for the license to be changed to the OPL, now
I'm asking publicly.

At the same time I'm also concerned about the change of copyright
holder.  By changing the copyright holder, we're basically losing
control of the license (as has just happened).

Say I take the Linux kernel source and ROT13 the variable names. Could
I then remove Linus's copyright and make the code my own?  I suspect
not. I'm surprised that the act of translating allows someone to do
that with a book.

If someone can definitively say that this is acceptable practice, then
clearly Hr Katins can do what he wants. However, if there is any
doubt, then I'd really like the copyright to remain unchanged as well.

Regards

Dave



Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:19:44 GMT  
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby

Quote:
> Say I take the Linux kernel source and ROT13 the variable names. Could
> I then remove Linus's copyright and make the code my own?  I suspect
> not. I'm surprised that the act of translating allows someone to do
> that with a book.

That's not the case, as far as my understanding of copyright law goes
(which isn't far, but I do have a passing interest).

Poor writers have been known to take the plots of novels in foreign
languages and reuse them wholesale in English (or vice versa),
basically by just translating the book. A plagiarism lawsuit usually
ensues.

Translation does not a new work make. I'm pretty sure copyright law is
on your side here, Dave, but you should consult an expert.

Ian
--
Ian Macdonald               | This is NOT a repeat.

                            |
                            |
                            |



Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:43:44 GMT  
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby
Hi,


Quote:
>I want to go on record as objecting to this. I don't know about the
>legality of changing the license: it strikes me as being wrong, in
>that by doing so the original license holder has potentially lost
>rights.  My interpretation of the OPL is that it works like the GPL:
>the original owner gets to set the licensing terms

>     The Open Publication works may be reproduced and distributed in
>     whole or in part, in any medium physical or electronic, provided
>     that the terms of this license are adhered to, and that this
>     license or an incorporation of it by reference (with any options
>     elected by the author(s) and/or publisher) is displayed in the
>     reproduction.

The GPL certainly does a better job if your interpretation is right:
    2 b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that
    in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

If you want to abuse the OPL, you just *adhere* to it by *displaying*
it. After that, you put the work under your own licence.

Quote:
>At the same time I'm also concerned about the change of copyright
>holder.  By changing the copyright holder, we're basically losing
>control of the license (as has just happened).

No; you are the copyright holder of the original. The translator is
the copyright holder of the translation. What's more, there is no
copyright as such in Germany. The author's rights are automatically
given when the work is created; no special marker is required.

Quote:
>Say I take the Linux kernel source and ROT13 the variable names. Could
>I then remove Linus's copyright and make the code my own?  I suspect
>not. I'm surprised that the act of translating allows someone to do
>that with a book.

A translation is certainly a much greater effort than ROT13.

While talking about the book: Very good work!

Thorsten
--
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President
should on no account be allowed to do the job.
        - The Book



Tue, 02 Nov 2004 03:20:47 GMT  
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby

Quote:



> > > Something completely unrelated: I was abit surprised by the license on
> > > the translation. Does the OPL allow this transition to a GNU Free
> > > Documentation License?

> > I am no license expert but I understand the OPL as "Do whatever you
> > want with this document". You could even redistribute it as part of
> > a non free book. Even more the translation of a book creates an own
> > new copyright owned by the translator (who must however have the
> > license to translate).

> I want to go on record as objecting to this. I don't know about the
> legality of changing the license: it strikes me as being wrong, in
> that by doing so the original license holder has potentially lost
> rights.  My interpretation of the OPL is that it works like the GPL:
> the original owner gets to set the licensing terms

>      The Open Publication works may be reproduced and distributed in
>      whole or in part, in any medium physical or electronic, provided
>      that the terms of this license are adhered to, and that this
>      license or an incorporation of it by reference (with any options
>      elected by the author(s) and/or publisher) is displayed in the
>      reproduction.

> The OPL does not say "do what you want with this material," any more
> than the GPL does.

> I have asked privately for the license to be changed to the OPL, now
> I'm asking publicly.

> At the same time I'm also concerned about the change of copyright
> holder.  By changing the copyright holder, we're basically losing
> control of the license (as has just happened).

> Say I take the Linux kernel source and ROT13 the variable names. Could
> I then remove Linus's copyright and make the code my own?  I suspect
> not. I'm surprised that the act of translating allows someone to do
> that with a book.

> If someone can definitively say that this is acceptable practice, then
> clearly Hr Katins can do what he wants. However, if there is any
> doubt, then I'd really like the copyright to remain unchanged as well.

I just contacted a friend of mine at Penguin.  In order to release a
translation, the translators would have to come to some type of
agreement with you.  This type of licensing is a major part of
publishing income:

http://www.publaw.com/licensing.html

She noted that the copyright of the translation does belong to the
translator; however, this is usually ceded to the original rights
holder as part of the licensing agreement.  She also noted that the
translation cannot be released without some type of agreement with
original rights holder.

From what I can tell there is probably a case here.  I hope this is a
missunderstanding, and that satisfactory agreement is reached.

~ Patrick



Tue, 02 Nov 2004 04:45:26 GMT  
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby
Hello --

Quote:

> > Something completely unrelated: I was abit surprised by the license on
> > the translation. Does the OPL allow this transition to a GNU Free
> > Documentation License?

> I am no license expert but I understand the OPL as "Do whatever you
> want with this document". You could even redistribute it as part of a
> non free book. Even more the translation of a book creates an own new
> copyright owned by the translator (who must however have the license
> to translate).

I'm not a license expert either, but even a brief glance at the OPL
indicates clearly that your caricature of that license ("do whatever
you want") has little to do with the license itself.

As for having the license to translate: yes, you had such a license,
but that license required you to include the following (with
appropriate interpolations):

  Copyright (c) <year> by <author's name or designee>. This material may
  be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in
  the Open Publication License, vX.Y or later (the latest version is
  presently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).

which I do not see anywhere in your translation.

Whether or not the OPL "even" allows you to "redistribute [the work]
as part of a non free book" (the example you used to defend your "do
whatever you want" misreading) is not the issue.  The issue is whether
or not the OPL allows you to distribute a translation of the book (a
"modified version", in the terms of the license) without including the
above copyright notice.  I see nothing in the OPL granting you
permission to do this.

David

--
David Alan Black


Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav



Tue, 02 Nov 2004 05:15:30 GMT  
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby
I am thankful that those four people translated "Programming Ruby"
into German, but ....

Quote:

> If someone can definitively say that this is acceptable practice,

I don't know whether it is legal, but it certainly is not acceptable.
It is not a fair move to change the license.

--
marko schulz



Tue, 02 Nov 2004 07:56:42 GMT  
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby

Quote:
> She also noted that the translation cannot be released without some
> type of agreement with original rights holder.

There is an agreement with the original rights holder as expressed
in the licensing terms:  the OPL grants everyone a worldwide,
royalty-free license to reproduce in part or whole the works
covered under the OPL as long as the OPL is adhered to.

In the case of a translation, as long as it is made available
under terms that do not conflict with the OPL, then you or anyone
else has the right to do exactly what was done.  Some may consider
it a flaw or weakness of the OPL, others consider it a feature
since anyone is free to take up the responsibility of translating
an OPL'ed work into another language without expressed prior
consent of the original rights holder beyond the OPL.

IANAL, of course.  The OPL seems very liberal and its intent
seems to make works under the OPL very free and with as little
encumberance as possible.  It basically protects the original
rights holder's rights to the original work but gives away
rights to any derivative works as long as the original rights
holder is credited and the new work doesn't violate the OPL
itself.

As much as I dislike parts of the GPL, the GFDL seems quite
reasonable for protecting non-software works.

-- Dossy

--

Panoptic Computer Network             web: http://www.panoptic.com/
  "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
    folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)



Tue, 02 Nov 2004 10:06:56 GMT  
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby

Quote:
> Whether or not the OPL "even" allows you to "redistribute [the work]
> as part of a non free book" (the example you used to defend your "do
> whatever you want" misreading) is not the issue.  The issue is whether
> or not the OPL allows you to distribute a translation of the book (a
> "modified version", in the terms of the license) without including the
> above copyright notice.  I see nothing in the OPL granting you
> permission to do this.

Excellent point.  The OPL gives the option to the creator of the
derived work to _additionally_ encumber the derived work but must
include the OPL in addition to whatever the creator of the derived
work desires.

While this does change the licensing of the derived work compared
to the original, it ensures that the original rights holder's
desires to have their work licensed via the OPL are respected.

-- Dossy

--

Panoptic Computer Network             web: http://www.panoptic.com/
  "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
    folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)



Tue, 02 Nov 2004 10:12:09 GMT  
 ANN: Programmierung in Ruby

Quote:

> In the case of a translation, as long as it is made available
> under terms that do not conflict with the OPL, then you or anyone
> else has the right to do exactly what was done.

I don't believe this is correct. The derived work must be under the
OPL. Consider the alternative.

We produce an OPL'd work, stating that permission must be obtained
before producing a commercial printed version. Someone doesn't like
that, so they take the work, change something, claim that it now falls
under their copyright, and relicense the work under their terms. They
then go ahead and produce a printed book without asking. The original
copyright holder has just lost all the rights that they had when they
licensed the work.

Although the OPL is a liberal license, it's still a license, and it
does not permit unrestricted rights.

I feel nervous even discussing this here: I'm very glad there's a
freely available German translation, and I want to encourage other
translations. If I didn't, I wouldn't have negotiated with AWL to have
the license changed to the OPL after the book was first published.

I want to see more people do what we're doing and opening up their
Ruby books. However, this relies on the good will of publishers.
Publishers are in the IP business, and live by copyright laws and
licenses. If they get the impression that open licenses are not
respected by the communities they're trying to serve, then I can see
that Programming Ruby may well be the last OPL book released by
Addison Wesley, and that would be a shame.

Regards

Dave



Tue, 02 Nov 2004 11:19:42 GMT  
 
 [ 30 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3]

 Relevant Pages 

1. ANN: Programmierung in Ruby

2. Betriebssystem-Programmierung

3. ASPI Programmierung

4. COBOL ACUCORP GUI-Programmierung

5. COBOL ACUCORP GUI-Programmierung

6. ACUCORP GUI-Programmierung

7. COBOL ACUCORP GUI-Programmierung

8. COBOL ACUCORP GUI-Programmierung

9. ACUCOBOL GUI-Programmierung Version 1.5 zum Download

10. CfP: 12. WORKSHOP LOGISCHE PROGRAMMIERUNG - WLP'97

11. ANN: Ruby the object-oriented scripting language

12. ANN: ruby-goto, your evil for the evening

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software