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

Re: Preferred license for documentation

On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 12:52:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 09:51:22AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> >  * Open Publication License; debian-legal archives show
> >    that it may have been considered free at one time but now is
> >    questionable.  Can anyone shed some light there?
> As I recall, the OPL has a thing equivalent to the GNU FDL's Cover
> Texts.  The GNU FDL's Cover Texts are immutable and unremovable, and so
> are the OPL's.

What it says is:

  Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the citation of
  the original publisher and author. The publisher and author's names shall
  appear on all outer surfaces of the book. On all outer surfaces of the book
  the original publisher's name shall be as large as the title of the work and
  cited as possessive with respect to the title. 

I'm not sure this strikes me as immediately non-free, though it definately
is borderline.  Unlike the FDL provisions, this doesn't stipulate exact
text, nor does it leave it up to the copyright holder to do so.

At the same time, I can readily see why people would have trouble with it.

> >  * Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike[1] seems to be endorsed by some,
> Why don't you post the license text in a new thread and we can sink our
> teeth into it?


> Now that I've relieved myself of my LPPL analysis obligation, I'm ready
> for a new challenge.  It may help distract me from the GNU FDL
> discussion, which I think Bruce would like to see.  :-P

Don't look now, but Creative Commons publishes somewhere around half a dozen
licenses :-)  (Though some are pretty blatantly non-free)

Reply to: