Re: Documentation license problem solved: OpenContent License (OPL)
On Tue, Sep 22, 1998 at 11:24:03AM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> I think our ongoing problem of finding an appropriate license for
> documentation has been solved.
>
> On slashdot.org today, an article about the OpenContent License (OPL,
> pronounced 'opal') was posted.
Hello Ben,
this really does surprise me now, as I've more or less been appointed (there
were no objections) to be the official contact person for Debian to the
OpenContent group. Please read in debian-private archive, starting from message
Subject: request for approval [dw2@opencontent.org: Participation in Ad Hoc Group]
Message-ID: <19980804075358.C5057@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
The current license has several problems, and David has build up a mailing list
and a nice small group to work on it.
The major consideration at the time I asked on debian-private about it was the
question which position Debian holds. I answered that the goal was and is to
write a free license, so it is a constructive goal. A license that complies
to the dfsg.
I also started a long discussion about eventual license terms, and this was
the start of the whole discussion. Now, the ideas have to be incorporated in
the license. We only started with it, and this will take some time.
So, the OpenContent license should not be used, please wait until the
OpenContent group will release a new license, which has hopefully solved
some of the major problems.
Gordon has mentioned the biggest problem, the notion of a source format.
This will be adressed in the next version of the license.
I don't agree with Gordon that the GPL is usable for documentation and other
data entities. The terms are solely usable for software, and if you can't
apply them to data entities, the terms of the license don't apply (so it
does nullify itself). Please also take into account that the initiator
(David Wiley) wants to use the license for learning objects, and we think we
can write a general license for learning objects, pictures, books etc.
The license will be GPL compatible, though. In fact, the GPL is very close
to a good license for data entities, but the terms have to be clarified (for
example, I've seen a GPL'ed book in a bookstore, and it had the remark "how
the terms of the GPL are applied to the book is left to the authors".
Reproducing the printed book was explicitely forbidden. There's something
wrong here).
Also keep in mind that the LDP is implementing a (book specific) new
license. Maybe we can join such efforts in the future.
To put a long remark short: The contact to OpneContent is already build up
and active, and as soon as something remarkable comes out of it, I'll let
all of you know.
Thank you,
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: