Greg Newby wrote:
The PG license is nothing but a textbook example of how an organisation goes to great pains to just damage itself.
This isn't fair. The Project Gutenberg license, in its earlier form, was created at about the same time (1991) that Stallman was working on GPL version 1. This predates the CC licenses by decades. We had many thousands of published eBooks before the CC license suite was even thought of.
And a decade after CC was established, why doesn't PG switch?
The PG license is a trademark license, with many words devoted to explaining that the eBook is free. Restrictions are for commercial use of the Project Gutenberg name, and are described in many more words (maybe too many, I agree). You know all of this, so I don't even understand why you're bringing this up.
You need to be a lawyer to understand that byzantine point. People rightly judge that nobody would expend that many words if they just wanted to give something away. If something looks like a used car sales contract and reads like a used car sales contract then they think it is a used car sales contract. 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. Surely an onerous thing to have to do if you just want to read a PD book. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Here we are claiming bogus copyrights. You don't get a copyright for throwing together a motley collection that has no inclusion standard other than that you could somehow get hold of one copy of the book. And then DP would hold that copyright and not PG.
Other than the CC public domain grant, the purpose of the PG license is not the same as the CC licenses, nor the GPL or similar "free" licenses. Those are about taking something that is copyrighted, and granting a limited license to use it. The PG license is about clearly stating that the item is public domain, and only restricts how the Project Gutenberg name may be used in conjunction with variations.
You don't see Penguin print an essay about trademarks in each book. So why do we? Just say: This is the Project Gutenberg (tm) ebook of ... AFAICS everybody republishes PG texts with the license removed anyway. The license just makes sure people remove the Project Gutenberg name from each and every book they republish. How many 'royalties' did the trademark earn us anyway? -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org