Re: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?
* Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> [2004-02-28 12:21:11 +0000]:
> 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."
The statement about finding internal consensus is very encouraging, if
it will ever be followed by action from the people in the know.
Here is the full story. I am preparing an update to a previously
packaged software and already ran into a wall - documentation license.
The software in question is Scribus a Desktop Publishing Application
that, I believe, is already giving some well-entrenched and expensive
professional applications such as Adobe InDesign and Quark Express a run
for their money by providing much better pdf export capabilities.
However, with a complex application of this level thorough and well
organized documentation is a must.
That's where the Debian related fun starts. The current documentation is
licensed under the OPLv1.0 with an elective clause in part VI that
prohibits publication in paper medium (books) without a written consent
of the original authors. I realized that the latter clause would make
the license not just DFSG non-free, but also GNU non-free, so I
contacted the upstream authors and explained the situation to them.
Later I had a conversation with both upstream authors who were quite
forthcoming in their attempts to resolve this issue. However, their
argument was that they chose the license in question simply because
there weren't any other documentation licenses that would be free, but
yet restricted the publication of the written documents by a commercial
entity that would not be required to contribute back to the project. In
my limited understanding it means that they believe that existing
documentation licenses do not "restrict taking the freedoms away" in a
way that GPL does it for the software. They said that and I took their
word for it until I could consult this list.
In the interim I requested and they agreed to remove the bundled
documentation from the software and substitute it with build-time
detection of it for distributions that do not adhere to such strict
policy as DFSG and with run-time detection of it for me to be able to
make a separate debian package that could go into non-free. However,
with the rumors of non-free being excluded from the distribution this
summer that prospect does not look very good either.
All in all this whole issue raises a question about Debian being able to
distribute ANY documentation within the distribution. How can Debian
continue to be a great distribution like it is without the
documentation, especially after closing the regular documentation
loophole of the non-free archive. Frankly I do not see a way out of it
short of establishing a "doc" archive in the place of non-free
specifically to address this question or changing the "measure of
freeiness" in the DFSG relative to documentation licenses. Neither one
seems to be ready to meet an approval from the current audience.
The ultimate question, of course, is what is the way for software
documentation to be included into Debian? What license shall be used or
what modifications shall be made to an existing license? Is it possible
to release the documentation under a separate license _exclusively_ to
Debian? The question for this particular cas is how can the above be
done, while retaining something of the sort of OPLv1.0 Article VI clause
B:
"B. To prohibit any publication of this work or derivative works in
whole or in part in standard (paper) book form for commercial purposes
is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright
holder.
To accomplish this, add the phrase 'Distribution of the work or
derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited
unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder.' to the
license reference or copy."
as that seems to be the only concern of the upstream authors in this
case.
Regards,
Alex.
Reply to: