Re: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Oleksandr Moskalenko <malex@tagancha.org>

> I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing.
> However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0.
> http://opencontent.org/openpub/
> Is it DFSG-free?

Hmm..

| Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the
| citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and
| author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the book. On
| all outer surfaces of the book the original publisher's name shall
| be as large as the title of the work and cited as possessive with
| respect to the title.

I find this clause non-free, like the similar language in the GFDL.

| 2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the
|    modifications dated. -

This seems to fail the Dissident Test.

| The location of the original unmodified document must be identified.

What do we think of this? It seems to prevent any distribution of
derivate documents if the original has been lost or at least one does
not know any location where the original can be found.

> Please CC me on reply.

Again let's try to find some internal consensus first.

-- 
Henning Makholm                          "We can build reactors, we can melt
                                     ice. Or engineers can be sent north for
                               re-education until they *do* understand ice."