Open source books

OK, first we are dealing with copyright and therefore are really talking about creative commons licenses.  Next, this raises the question of why a person would want to modify a classic, epic story.

So, for the most part, what we are really looking at here is, non-fiction works or other current event or opinion articles, books, and other documentation.  Of course, that's not to say that someone would not want to create derivative works of a classic, epic work of fiction.  A lot of story franchises, especially those taken to film, are "re-imagening" their context.

So in this article, we look at open, creative commons books and documents and some other, fiction based colaborations.

As in other realms, not all written content is created equal.  There are some great works out there and in other cases, the work itself may seem to be pointless, far too opinionated, or simply gibberish.

One of the key arguments for having a work under creative commons is being able to share knowledge and information in a way that promotes and encourages the sharing of that knowledge and information in a way that will quickly distribute it and also build that knowledge and information into something even better.

That may be the case for scientific or journalistic documents, but it can also be a valuable tool for creative works, as well.  It can certainly encourage creativity and help produce additional work that encapsulates, builds or expands upon a great story.

First, it remains a good idea to know, or refresh your knowledge of, creative commons licenses.  Each license can change the way you can use, modify, and share the content.  Free content may just be free to acquire and read, but may not mean it can be shared or modified.  There are many open source or creative commons licenses which prohibit making derivatives or selling of the content in its original form and may also prevent the sale of any derivatives, if derivatives are allowed.

Archive.org contains a list of "community texts" with some form of open or creative commons licensing.

The Creative Commons organization's web site has a list of creative commons licensed books.

And Wikibooks has a number of collaborative works which one can read and modify, if desired.

While it may not be perfectly clear, Wikipedia is a creative commons web site.  While certain web sites may be wiki's, allowing visitors to add and edit content, they have been prone to restrictive, proprietary licensing, which basically means that what you contribute or edit, is owned by the host company and cannot be reused or shared, without permission.

While one should be sure to confirm the creative commons license of any content from wikipedia (and some would suggest being careful about the validity of any content), wikipedia's terms of use document clears up much confusion.

If ever there is any question, or there is a desire to quote something verbatim, it is very important to specify that the content in question is quoted for educational purposes, being very clear to indicate and attribute the source, and also ensure that the content in which the borrowed content is embedded, is not sold in any form.  Failure to do so is likely to result in a cease and desist and "take down" letter, followed by a court order and legal action if the content is not removed.

Stretch your open, just don't stretch the law if you don't want to put yourself at significant risk.