I’m not sure “royalties” was the perfect way for him to describe the proceeds but I don’t see any contradiction in charging a slight premium for supplying a printed form of the work (and charging for the labour of doing the printing as you would for any physical good).

The existence of the printed work doesn’t remove the CC license, it doesn’t eliminate any freedoms or remove the free version of the book. It merely gives people an optional way to support the author financially while they enjoy the work.

*mice scratch heads at the apparent contradictions in all of this*

instead of promoting the ideals of web2.0 does this not in practice just promote the traditional publishing business? we mean if a “free book” can be copied and distributed without cost (or price) electronically, is it not true that any royalties will be derived from printing, binding, and shipping? why have a publisher at all? would it not be more consistent to cut out the publisher, ask for no royalty, and ONLY make the book available in electronic form?

(moreover, if sheryl crow is to be believed that we should all limit ourselves to one square of toilet paper – rather a generous amount for us mice – is it not also true that the purchase of a printed book will have to be offset by fewer trips to the loo by the purchaser? what’s the point of having a book to read on the loo, which because of environmental impact of printing said book requires that one not go to the loo?)