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

Re: DRAFT summary of the OPL; feedback requested

I wrote:

> 1) Draft summaries should clearly be marked.
> 2) The first sentence (which is a paragraph by itself) clearly states
>    the conclusion, and includes the full name, including version number,
>    of the license.
> 3) The reasons for the conclusion follow in list form.
> 4) Each reason includes a reference to the relevant portion of the
>    DFSG.
> 5) An optional section titled "Suggestions" follows the list of reasons.
>    It includes d-l's suggestions on how to resolve the problem(s).
> 6) A URL for the original license is included.
> 7) The full text of the license is included at the end.

Since no one's objected, I'll replace #4 with:

4) Each reason should refer explicitly to the freedom that is
   restricted, and how it is restricted.  Including the DFSG section
   number is not necessary.

If/when we set up a debian-legal web page, something like this can be
included so that people know what to expect in the summary (and so that
we have a reference for writing summaries).

> - Aggregate works must include a note that it contains OPL work.  This
>   is presumably fine, as it seems to be met simply by including this
>   license along with the OPL work.  Is this worth clarification?
> - A reference to the original, unmodified version must be included. This
>   has come up before, but I've forgotten the conclusion.  Does it
>   violate the Dessert Island test, as the guy on the island may not know
>   where the document came from...?

I'm going to skip the first point here, unless someone wants to make a
case for it.  After thinking about it, I'm convinced the second point is
a problem, though, so I'll include that.

I'll give this new version another couple of days, and if there's been
no objection I'll post a real (non-draft) version on Friday (hopefully
to be included on any debian-legal license page, which I think is an
excellent idea).

Below is a new version of the summary, with the original quoted ('> ')
and additions/changes quoted with '+ '.

> --- Begin *DRAFT* Debian-legal summary of the OPL ---
> Debian-legal has concluded that the OPL (Open Publication License) v1.0
> is not a DFSG-free license.
> - It requires the original publisher and author to appear on all outer
>   surfaces of a paper copy, and defines how they should appear.  This is
>   a significant restriction on modification (DFSG #3).

Change (remove the DFSG reference):

+ - It requires the original publisher and author to appear on all outer
+   surfaces of a paper copy, and defines how they should appear.  This is
+   a significant restriction on modification.

> - The person who makes any modifications must be identified.  According
>   to the Dissident Test this violates DFSG #3 as well.

Change (remove DFSG reference & refer to the DFSG FAQ for the Dissident

+ - The person who makes any modifications must be identified.  According
+   to the Dissident Test this is an unacceptable restriction on
+   modification.  (See the DFSG FAQ[1] for a description of the Dissident
+   Test.)

Then add the following:

+ - A reference to the original, unmodified version must be included in
+   any modified versions.  This may not be known or available, and may be
+   impossible under certain circumstances (e.g., the document is included
+   as help text in a binary).  This is an unacceptable restriction on
+   modification.

> Suggestions:
> As a copyleft license for documents debian-legal suggests the GPL with
> the optional addition of explanatory text (text which is not part of the
> license) explaining that the author believes the preferred form for
> making modifications (i.e., source) to be an electronic version in the
> original format.
> If the goal is a compromise between allowing paper-only versions and
> copyleft, debian-legal suggests using the GPL with an additional
> exception to the source distribution requirement for small-scale or
> non-commercial distribution.  As always, it's best if the exception can
> be dropped at the choice of the recipient, so as to maintain GPL
> compatibility.
> NOTE: The above is not legal advice.  If you need legal advice you
> should contact an attorney.
> The latest version of the Open Publication License can be found at:
> http://opencontent.org/openpub/
> It is included below in full.

And add the link to the DFSG FAQ.  This will have to be changed if we
move the FAQ to an official location:

[1] http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html

> --- End *DRAFT* debian-legal summary ---
> ----------------------------------------
> Open Publication License
> v1.0, 8 June 1999
> The Open Publication works may be reproduced and distributed in whole or in
> part, in any medium physical or electronic, provided that the terms of this
> license are adhered to, and that this license or an incorporation of it by
> reference (with any options elected by the author(s) and/or publisher) is
> displayed in the reproduction.
> Proper form for an incorporation by reference is as follows:
>     Copyright (c) <year> by <author's name or designee>. This material may be
>     distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open
>     Publication License, vX.Y or later (the latest version is presently
>     available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).
> The reference must be immediately followed with any options elected by the
> author(s) and/or publisher of the document (see section VI).
> Commercial redistribution of Open Publication-licensed material is permitted.
> 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.
> The copyright to each Open Publication is owned by its author(s) or designee.
> The following license terms apply to all Open Publication works, unless
> otherwise explicitly stated in the document.
> Mere aggregation of Open Publication works or a portion of an Open Publication
> work with other works or programs on the same media shall not cause this
> license to apply to those other works. The aggregate work shall contain a
> notice specifying the inclusion of the Open Publication material and
> appropriate copyright notice.
> SEVERABILITY. If any part of this license is found to be unenforceable in any
> jurisdiction, the remaining portions of the license remain in force.
> NO WARRANTY. Open Publication works are licensed and provided "as is" without
> warranty of any kind, express or implied, including, but not limited to, the
> implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose or
> a warranty of non-infringement.
> All modified versions of documents covered by this license, including
> translations, anthologies, compilations and partial documents, must meet the
> following requirements:
>  1. The modified version must be labeled as such.
>  2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the
>     modifications dated.
>  3. Acknowledgement of the original author and publisher if applicable must be
>     retained according to normal academic citation practices.
>  4. The location of the original unmodified document must be identified.
>  5. The original author's (or authors') name(s) may not be used to assert or
>     imply endorsement of the resulting document without the original author's
>     (or authors') permission.
> In addition to the requirements of this license, it is requested from and
> strongly recommended of redistributors that:
>  1. If you are distributing Open Publication works on hardcopy or CD-ROM, you
>     provide email notification to the authors of your intent to redistribute
>     at least thirty days before your manuscript or media freeze, to give the
>     authors time to provide updated documents. This notification should
>     describe modifications, if any, made to the document.
>  2. All substantive modifications (including deletions) be either clearly
>     marked up in the document or else described in an attachment to the
>     document.
>  3. Finally, while it is not mandatory under this license, it is considered
>     good form to offer a free copy of any hardcopy and CD-ROM expression of an
>     Open Publication-licensed work to its author(s).
> The author(s) and/or publisher of an Open Publication-licensed document may
> elect certain options by appending language to the reference to or copy of the
> license. These options are considered part of the license instance and must be
> included with the license (or its incorporation by reference) in derived
> works.
> 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.
> ----------------------------------------

Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Reply to: