Re: Updating the OpenContent license
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 05:27:23PM -0500, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:
> (does anyone really want to modify Alice In Wonderland?)
I'd prefer a blue rabbit :-)
> and should be extended and ammended over time, should be DGPL to be of
> maximum worth to the community (and probably to the author as well)
> and we can recommend that document B is so much a work unto itself
> that we wish to ensure forever that no one will change a hair of it.
It is possible :
> many of them say is different than what even they themselves might say
> today, but to revise such a work is revisionist: The work reflects the
> way they thought at that time and, apart from its subject matter, it
> is a work unto itself.
They just have to add NTS or "Non Technical Section" in the header and
thus no modification of this section can be done without authorisation
from the author : back to "verbatim copies on any medium are permitted".
> I would, however, want to see the copyright allow for free
> distribution of this document, for example, allowing electronic
> duplication on CDROM, or to let me xerox copies of a chapter to give
You can copy a NTS.
> This is where DGPL for something like "Red Hat Unleashed" is too
> restrictive and actively prevents good documentation. It amounts to
A wise use of NTS prevents that.
> under the LGPL, ie "This document may be free, but its products need
> not be free" in which case, it is perfectly acceptable to say that my
Not for me, it's a BSD like license.
> totally entitled to be restricted without tainting the 'free-ness' of
> my manuscript. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I have just
But anyone willing to improve the book you wrote, based on a free
manuscript, can not do it legally.
Guylhem P. Aznar http://www.linuxdoc.org
guylhem \@/ metalab.unc.edu http://metalab.unc.edu/guylhem
"They who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ----- Benjamin Franklin