I think I'm starting to sound as reactionary as a couple of drunk guys posting shit on a website. Eerie ain't it?
I just read some of the descriptions at Roadside and I really don't see a problem. I was thinking you just put verbatim descriptions from my book for now, but it looks like you just used the "facts" from it. Maybe I should have read it first. I'll shut up now.
Well, first of all your name is in my online guide at the bottom of every page and in the .pdf files on the first page (see below):
Route details are copyright Ray Ellington, John Bronaugh, and other Red River Gorge climbers.
Second of all, I wouldn't care if you did that because I'm not making any money on it anyway. I would continue to push it out for free so nobody would buy your version anyway.
It sounds like your issue is related to your thoughts of the .pdf files hurting your book sales. O'Reilly offers many of their books online for free download as do many other companies. The industry understands that people still like to own hardcopy books with colorful pages, etc. Maybe you should educate yourself on this issue as they did.
I removed .pdf files of the crags which you have in your guide from the site. I won't put them back out there until you have sold all the copies of your books. I don't believe it will change anything but because I know (and lust after you) I would rather be certain that I'm not hurting your book sales than a little uncertain.
It sounds like things are largely cleared up - I just want to throw out some personal clarifications.
I hope that my (somewhat vague) comments about 'open source' didn't create misunderstandings that led to this exchange. The 'intellectual property' concepts and legal frameworks that are part of the open source movement are complex (and, obviously, I am not a lawyer) - but they do not generally deny the idea of 'ownership' and the related rights as we understand them in modern, "Western" legal systems. It isn't meant to be a free-for-all of giving away other people's work unwillingly. People contribute to open source projects knowingly and expect to be credited for their work. The work also typically carries with it signifigant licensing conditions in order to maintain the coherency of the work and its attribution. Also, it is not 'anti-commerce' - the 'open source' system strongly encourages commerce in a variety of direct and indirect ways. (for anyone who is interested in this, search for information on the "GPL" or "general public license")
Personally, I am happily contributing a bit here and a bit there to the online guide because it so obviously benefits the community (and I'm having fun!) I'm assuming that this stuff is being provided to the community without charge. As this system is being refined (and as it becomes ever more clear that this sort of online guide is the future of climbing guides), it becomes more clear that the system would be valuable to other people for other climbing areas. If Ray packages it and gives it away (including what ever work I've done) that would be fine with me - it's a further contribution to the global climbing community. But if Ray were to sell it for cash, that would be a different story - and we'd have to work something out. I'm guessing that you (John) have somewhat similar feelings to the aspects of your work that are included?
