Re: Preferred license for documentation
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 04:55:40PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 12:52:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 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.
Also, it has license options VI-A and VI-B:
A. To prohibit distribution of substantively modified versions
without the explicit permission of the author(s). "Substantive
modification" is defined as a change to the semantic content of the
document, and excludes mere changes in format or typographical
corrections.
To accomplish this, add the phrase `Distribution of substantively
modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit
permission of the copyright holder.' to the license reference or
copy.
B. To prohibit any publication of this work or derivative works in
whole or in part in standard (paper) book form for commercial
purposes is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the
copyright holder.
To accomplish this, add the phrase 'Distribution of the work or
derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form is
prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright
holder.' to the license reference or copy.
Which means that each OPL-licensed work should be examined for these
options, which, if enabled, make it non-free.
--
Dmitry Borodaenko
Reply to: