Re: OPL
Mariusz Przygodzki <dune@home.pl> wrote:
>Is anybody can advise me if the OPL license
>(http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml) is or isn't in compliance with DFSG?
Insofar as it makes sense to classify it under software guidelines, I
believe it is.
>I especially concerns about two following points:
>
>...
> a) You must cause the modified content to carry prominent notices
> stating that you changed it, the exact nature and content of the
> changes, and the date of any change.
No problem. It's a lot less restrictive than some of the things that
DFSG 4 allows. Note also that this is almost exactly the same clause as
GPL 2(a).
> b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> whole or in part contains or is derived from the OC or any part
> thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
> under the terms of this License, unless otherwise permitted under
> applicable Fair Use law.
Obviously no problem. Think about what the GPL says, for example!
--
Colin Watson [cjw44@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OPL
- From: Gaute B Strokkenes <gs234@cam.ac.uk>
- References:
- OPL
- From: Mariusz Przygodzki <dune@home.pl>