Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 7th Apr 2012 17:52 UTC
Permalink for comment 513168
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-09-21
This sounds dangerously close to a grey area.
They may not be violating the letter of copyright law as it stands today, the description makes it sound like they are creating textbooks with little creative input on the content or structure. Rather, they are finding content that reflects the content of existing textbooks and piecing it together in a way the reflects the structure of existing textbooks. Even though the content used doesn't violate copyright law, the use of that content doesn't violate copyright law, and even following a similar structure doesn't violate copyright law the open textbook definitely sounds derivative.
It would have been far wiser for the publishers of these open textbooks to use creative commons licensed materials to create higher quality textbooks than the material that they are derived from instead of using those materials to create derivatives of existing products.
At any rate, this is something best decided by a sober court of law than publishers or arm-chair commentators.