Why isn't the book free?

One of the first questions I'm often asked about the book is "Why isn't it free?" This is usually followed by a snicker indicating that someone has discovered a logical flaw that undermines the entire premise of the book. The software is free. Why isn't the book? The simple reason is that I'm not rich. In fact, I'm relatively poor because I've spent the last several years writing text not code. So, unfortunately, I had no choice but to form an alliance with an tree shredding company with deep roots in the old economy. There just wasn't any VC money to burn.

The more I thought about the question, however, the more I realized that the question was missing the point. As Stallman pointed out, it isn't about "free beer", it's about "free speech." Open source is about giving programmers (and users) the chance to poke under the hood and change things.

But why would someone want to change a book? Well, you might want to make the ending better. ("A miracle storm came along and blew the iceberg out of the Titanic's way sparing the thousands of passengers and billions of earthlings the endless stories of tragedy.") You might want to fashion a different ending that speaks to your generation. ("So like King Lear got all of his daughters together so he could take ownership of the parts of the family dysfunction he caused. But by the same token, Regan and Goneril were like most embarrassed when they recognized that they too had been megabitches at times and thus should bear some of the responsibility for the dysfunction.") You might even want to clean up the prose and make it more direct. ("My name is Ishmael.") You might even want to fix an error. ("The seventh sentence on page 5 should read `Do NOT push button 12.'")

Each of these reasons may be fun at times and even socially useful, but the reasons also illustrate the difference between text and software. We interact with text by reading. Then we write our own words. Aside from fixing errors, I think that there's something wrong with taking apart the prose of someone else in the same way that we take apart and improve open source software. It's not the same as modifying some kernel to interact correctly with the buffer on your printer. It's putting words in someone else's mouth.

It's also important to note the difference between non-fiction and fiction. Anyone can take the facts from my book and reuse them. They can put a different spin on them or use them for different arguments or different conclusions. The facts are free already even if I choose the most restrictive use of copyright around. When it comes to trading in facts, the copyright law is close to equivalent to the GPL.

Fiction is different. The argument for open sourcing fictional characters is much stronger. Many of the major studios and content factors look the other way when fans write new stories with famous characters. But my book isn't fiction so I don't need to deal with this argument.

There is also a permanence to a book that is strikingly refreshing. Webpages are just too mutable. At times, this can be slightly creepy and pretty Orwellian. I can think of several times where the old text disappeared and was replaced with the new text. Alas, dead trees and ink cost money.

So, I don't feel as guilty about not open sourcing the book or not releasing it under some form of the GPL. The main advantages that flow from sharing the source code just don't apply to text. Sure, it would be nice if I was rich enough to give away the book, but I'm not. If anyone wants to buy copies for needy folks, I can get you a bulk discount. If anyone wants to apply the GPL to the facts, go right ahead. They're free. Think of my book as a Red Hat distro of open source stories.