How about a contract? (Was: Re: [GENERAL] A book for PgSQL? A need? yes? no?) - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Clark Evans |
---|---|
Subject | How about a contract? (Was: Re: [GENERAL] A book for PgSQL? A need? yes? no?) |
Date | |
Msg-id | 36C8F43C.D6F4A811@manhattanproject.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [NOVICE] Subject: Re: [GENERAL] A book for PgSQL? A need? yes? no? (lynch@cognitivearts.com (Richard Lynch)) |
List | pgsql-general |
Stephan Doliov wrote: > > Since we are tossing ideas around, here is my two cents. > > .1c In order not to worry about royalties we can donate proceeds to > > PostgreSQL. > Amen/Bravo! This would truly be in the spirit of PostgreSQL How about the publisher? The editors? etc. It might be that paid editors are better than free ones... and thus the book sells 10x the amount of copies, and thus the "donation" is 5x what it would have been without the paid editors!! Also, it might be that the book will have more/better content if some of the individuals earn some money for their work, it might not be a ton, but that's beside the point. For instance, I'd like to see Thomas get a flight to some warm fuzzy place if he's in a northern climate. The same with some of the other "key" players in the PostgreSQL group: Marc, Bruce, etc. The question I'm asking is: What is the legal structure of PostgreSQL? And even more so: What is the "Contract" for this book? If you IGNORE the fact that a contract _does_ exist and don't track it... then it will be a mess and people will feel cheated. This is counter-productive and could serve to HURT the PostgreSQL group more than it helps. THUS, I'm not saying that the "proceeds" shouldn't go to PostgreSQL. I'm saying let's further spell this out. Let's do it formally. It's not _that_ hard. My offer: I'll create a list for us to discuss this contract (with an experienced bookkeeper *and* attorney present on the list). Usually, the legal work _and_ the bookkeeping work for the making sure that everything is "above the board" usually amounts to 4% of gross. Since we are building our bookkeeping system using PostgreSQL, we would consider our work as payment for royalty-free use of the database. O'Rilley is going to make money from your efforts, I think those people should make money commensurate with the effort that they put into the project. Unless you do adiquate bookkeeping and have a formal agreement, this WON'T HAPPEN. Someone will run away with _your_ cherry. Frankly, I'm sick of people abusing OpenSource projects by taking all the money-making opportunities and hogging them, and leaving all of the hard grind-stone work to those who 'donate'. This is the very reason _why_ I'm making a bookkeeping system in the first place. So.. . it'd be cool if we all tried a "collaborative" effort... with the *real* legal and accounting expertise to back it up. If you would like to know more, let me know. The list can be up tomorow and we can start putting together legal language on Thursday! Best, Clark Evans P.S. By now you are asking "So... what's in it for Clark" Since you asked, here is my candid answer: a) Seeing a kick ass book. b) Seeing all those who contributed to the book and to the database which the book is written about compensated equitably for their work. c) It's taken me a year of hard work to get in the position where I can do this. Finally seeing what myself and my associates have been working so hard to generate would be way cool! d) The bookkeeping system still isn't complete, having a community of users to help develop it more would be fantastic! Nothing like a real user. e) The feeling that I've repayed the community that has given me a database upon which I am building my bookkeeping system. f) Showing that legal language and accounting complement open-source projects. g) Showing that "open-source" != "no-money" What do you say?
pgsql-general by date: