“I’ve convinced Prentice PTR to publish a series of books that have their text under Open Source licenses. This is a tremendous departure for a mainstream publisher,” he’s announced on his web site. In short, Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference (PTR) is publishing a "Bruce Perens' Open Source Series” of computer books under the Open Publication License 1.0.

The Open Publication License dates back to 1999. David Wiley, assistant professor, hacker, and designer, founded Opencontent.org, which published the Open Publication License. With this license, authors in any medium can release their work for reproducing and modifying while still having a means to preserve their rights. Starting with standard copyright, the Open Publication License sets forth the terms and conditions under which the material may be distributed. Two important options can be invoked on the license. The first prohibits distribution of substantively modified versions without the explicit permission of the author. The second prohibits publication of the work or derivative works in standard book form for commercial purposes unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder. The Perens' Open Source Series from Prentice Hall uses the Open Publication License with no options.

Two books in the Prentice Hall PTR books in the Bruce Perens' Open Source Series are available in stores now, and a third book is to appear in March. Since the books are under the Open Publication License with no options, Perens writes on his site that the books “are legal to copy, modify, and redistribute.”

Perens' success in moving his book series under Open Source licensing drew praise from Lawrence Lessig of the Stanford Law School. This month, Lessig's blog bore a congratulatory note: "Bruce Perens has extraordinarily great news about a deal he’s struck with Prentice Hall to permit “open source” publication of a series of books...It is a real testament to Bruce’s skill that he convinced Prentice Hall. Congratulations. I only hope we can help make the licenses part of the semantic web."

Lessig along with Hal Abelson of MITand Eric Saltzman of Harvard Law School helped launch Creative Commons 2001 as "an intellectual property conservancy." Inspired by the Open Source movement, they're seeking to restore sanity into copyright laws that stifle creativity and business. Authors can choose from a set of Creative Commons custom licenses that allow them to indicate how others may use their intellectual works. These free licenses allow writers to tell the world "Some rights reserved" or even "No rights reserved.”

In this interview with Open, Perens reveals what’s between the printed lines in the Prentice Hall decision to issue books on Open Source under Open Source licensing.

So are you making publishing history as a pioneer in open sourcing book publishing? Getting the ball rolling so to speak?

PERENS: No. I didn’t invent the ball. I’m getting the ball rolling that other people helped me build. Already, 50 books are under Open Source licenses from various publishers.

When and how did the Prentice Hall PTR deal come about?

PERENS: Prentice Hall sent out a press release a year ago, which came out over the PR Newswire, about a new Bruce Perens Open Source series. Prentice Hall wanted my involvement as series editor and as quid pro quo, I told them that I would like these books to come under Open Source licenses. Now two are out in retail stores and the third is due out in March. So I became the Peter Norton of Linux.

Did they balk about the licensing at first?

PERENS: No. They had already got that kind of demand from authors. So this is a series where all of the books are Open Source. When you come in as an author, you will be making your book an Open Source publication.

Will 2003 be a pivotal year for the entire issue of copyright?

PERENS: The broader field of intellectual property as a whole is a very contested area, and right now there are a lot of people who want to be extremely tight about it. We have trouble with patents much more than with copyright. Patents stops us from writing a particular algorithm. What we’re saying with Open Source is that we are not a free for all. We offer a contract that enforces a certain number of terms of collaboration, to keep us from being parasitized. And this helps us to do things we thought were impossible. Linux fits in that impossible field.

Magazines and journals carry the latest briefings and news about Open Source. Why are books your target?

PERENS: Software developers need books. People who are not technologists might think technology is changing so quickly, but this is an incremental process. What developers need to know is quite deep, and the shelf life can be measured in at least one decade. That is why I have a problem with patents. It is hard to pile an idea on top other ideas when those ideas are patented.

So after Lessig posts his congratulatory note to you, returning comments on your series’ Open Publications License announcement appear. One comment asks, “Why is Perens trying to fork the Creative Commons licenses?” In your defense, another comment surfaces arguing, “How is Perens forking the CC licenses? …the OPL 1.0 predates the Creative Commons.” What's your response?

PERENS: David Wiley wrote the Open Publication License in 1999, before Creative Commons was a glint in Larry Lessig’s eye. I can hardly be accused of forking. That’s funny. The license I am using, which is without options, conveys the rights that some of those Creative Commons licenses use and are probably compatible with those licenses, so that someone could potentially add a chapter under one of those licenses. So there’s nothing wrong with the Creative Commons licenses; I have no problem with people using those.

So you see useful coexistence for the two?

PERENS: When I wrote the Open Source Definition, I did not expect there would be 50 licenses. It's a mess that I created. At the time, we had seven or eight licenses we were trying to classify without thinking every lawyer in the world would want to add his little flavor to it. One of the things we are talking about now in the Open Source community is some degree of license consolidation, at least for the software. I have started recommending three licenses for Open Source software: the GPL, the LGPL, and the MIT licenses.  These cover a range of various degrees of permissiveness. In the case of publication licensing, I expect the Creative Commons Organization to become the nexus for unification of licenses for written text.

What would you like to see happen generally in business models for book publishing?

PERENS: Publishers have really been in the king spot. I would like to see more of a focus on the author. What about electronic rights; what about reprint rights; what about the right to update a book, etc. The good thing about the series license is that should Prentice Hall lose interest in a book, the author can take the book elsewhere. And should the author lose interest, somebody else can take it up. In the Open Source community, some programmers die and others continue their work.

How does the series’ economic model work for Prentice-Hall?

PERENS: The books are sold like any other technical books and two are in the stores now. Prentice Hall makes money because people like paper. [editor’s note: The paper versions are in the stores several months before the electronic versions come out. That kind of spaced timing protects Prentice Hall in that rival publishers can’t just copy the books and beat Prentice Hall’s pricing in retail stores.] My economic model will have to change eventually, though: If we ever get to the point where e-books are as easy to read as paper books, then my economic model does not work any longer.