[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Documentation license problem solved: OpenContent License (OPL)



On Tue, Sep 22, 1998 at 02:56:46PM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
>  BG> On slashdot.org today, an article about the OpenContent License
>  BG> (OPL, pronounced 'opal') was posted.
> 
> OPL is nice because it is designed to be easy-to-understand.

Maybe I misread it...  It seems to suggest that selling it say in book form
would not be acceptable if that's all there was in that book.  If I write a
book in SGML/HTML and put the thing on the web under this license, I would
not mind someone taking that and printing it and charging a regular book's
fee for it.  However, the publisher must realize that they do this as a
service and do not own copyright on the material they print---anyone else
could print the same book verbatim and they could print it and sell it for
less and people would buy from the less expensive source.  And just because
they print the book doesn't mean someone else isn't gonna burn the thing
onto CDR and sell it or that someone isn't gonna just use the internet
available versions for free!

Did I misread the OPL?

Attachment: pgpq4BYHMTzkX.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: