Re: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?
Oleksandr Moskalenko <malex@tagancha.org> writes:
> * Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> [2004-02-28 12:21:11 +0000]:
>> Scripsit Oleksandr Moskalenko <malex@tagancha.org>
>> | 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.
I agree.
>> | 2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the
>> | modifications dated. -
>>
>> This seems to fail the Dissident Test.
Yup.
> 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.
"Required to contribute back to the project" leaves a lot unsaid. The
GPL doesn't require contributions back to the original project, so they
clearly don't mean that literally. Presumably they feel that there are
safeguards in the GPL that aren't available for documentation. What
safeguards are they talking about?
Traditionally d-l has suggested to folks with this problem that they use
the GPL with explicit explanatory text explaining what they take
"preferred form for modification" (i.e., source) to mean for their work
(e.g., an electronic version in the original format, or something like
it). That should provide the same protections as the GPL, though
generally it amounts to mandating some form of electronic distribution
along with printed forms, which can have practical problems.
Given that this is a relatively common problem I believe that there's a
need for a license (a version of the GPL would be best, IMHO) that makes
this more clear within the text of the license -- that may help to
relieve some of the uneasiness of folks with this concern.
But as for the practical problem of distributing hardcopy versions, I
simply don't see a way to satisfy the criteria:
- DFSG free
- copyleft (i.e., can't take it proprietary)
- easy to distribute hardcopy (i.e., without electronic versions)
This is because the last two requirements directly contradict, unless
you're willing to add extra restrictions as a way to bridge the two
(e.g., you must provide an electronic version on a web site), which
would violate the DFSG. I'm eager to be proven wrong here, but I just
don't think it can be done. The closest you can come, I think, is to
require that electronic versions accompany hardcopy, but with an
exception for copies under some number (e.g., 100). Do d-l people agree
that such a license could be DFSG free?
It seems to me that you have to give up one of the above three
requirements. So in order to let folks distribute hardcopy versions
without an accompanying "source" version you have to go with a more
permissive license (e.g., BSD) or less permissive (i.e., not DFSG free).
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: