Re: Open Content Licence is non-free?
Bruce et al.,
David Wiley from OpenContent here.
I've been hoping for some discussion like this for quite a while, but have had
trouble finding anyone (other than Debian's own Markus Brinkman) willing to take
any time for it.
Some of the confusion stems from the fact that there are actually two licenses.
Unfortunately, they share the same acronym. The OpenContent License (originally
the OpenContent Philosophy and License, OPL) and the Open Publication License
(also named OPL, this was beyond my control but is another story).
I have been hoping to update the original OpenContent license for sometime, if I
could ever get a dialog going about its strengths and weaknesses... What specific
suggestions do you (and everyone else) have? It's intended purpose is to cover
anything non-software (i.e., anything that was not covered by all the existing
free licenses at the time), hence the dubious name 'content', although I think the
DFSG are a wonderful yardstick by which to measure. See the link below for the
license in question.
Thanks in advance.