Re: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?
Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:34PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Commercial printings can just make a written offer to provide the
> source on demand, which is then satisfied by sticking it on a website
> and referencing the site from the text.
Yes. But I can imagine situations where that would mean that, for
example, a class couldn't distribute a hardcopy version because they
don't have a server to stick it up on.
>> 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?
>
> If it's free without the exception then it's free with it; the
> exception does not make it free. Please don't pick an arbitrary number
> though; my class at university had about 110 people in it, so a limit
> of 100 would be problematic. Say "for non-commercial use" or something
> - that should cover all the cases.
Certainly throwing in the exception wouldn't make it non free. But what
about making it explicit in the license text that "source" doesn't mean
a paper copy?
Hrm. Punch cards come to mind. Can't say it should be computer
readable -- what about OCR? I don't know how this would properly be
worded.
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: