Re: Summary: Is Open Publication License v1.0 compatible?, was Re: GPL+ for docs
I normally don't read this list (so don't shout at me if I'm dumb ;)
but as an affected maintainer I have read the interpretation
of this licence and have a question.
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> --- Debian-legal summary ---
> The OPL (Open Publication License) is not DFSG free:
> - It requires the original publisher and author to appear on all outer
> surfaces of a book, and defines how they should appear. This is a
> significant restriction on modification.
ok, I understand that.
> - The person who makes any modifications must be identified, which
> violates the dissident test.
Hmm, a question about this: Wouldn't make this the GPL DFSG-nonfree? It states
"You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that you changed the files and the date of any change."
Or does this not imply that I have to give my name, too? Have I only to
state the fact _that_ I changed the files?
Frank Lichtenheld <firstname.lastname@example.org>