DRAFT summary of the OPL; feedback requested
Ok, I've included a new (and marked as draft) version of my previous
summary of the OPL discussion. Since the consensus seems to be that we
should formalize things a bit, I've come up with the following (draft,
even!) requirements for a good d-l summary.
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.
The second point is included so that it can be taken as a short summary.
Hopefully someone who's simply after a quick judgement can get that by
looking at the first sentence, and it could possibly be pulled out by a
script.
Personally, I don't feel that #4 is a good idea. It reinforces the
already common idea that the DFSG is a recipe rather than a set of
guidelines (i.e., it must be instantiated in a process rather than taken
in a vacum). It is true, though, that each reason should clearly
explain what's wrong, and not just to someone who's familiar with d-l
jargon.
Suggestions? Any other criteria that should be met in a good (draft)
summary?
Other than that, on reading the license again, there are a couple of
other things to point out. They're certainly minor in comparison to the
other issues, but if they're a problem they should probably be included
in the full summary.
- 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...?
--- 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).
- The person who makes any modifications must be identified. According
to the Dissident Test this violates DFSG #3 as well.
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.
--- End *DRAFT* debian-legal summary ---
----------------------------------------
Open Publication License
v1.0, 8 June 1999
I. REQUIREMENTS ON BOTH UNMODIFIED AND MODIFIED VERSIONS
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.
II. COPYRIGHT
The copyright to each Open Publication is owned by its author(s) or designee.
III. SCOPE OF LICENSE
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.
IV. REQUIREMENTS ON MODIFIED WORKS
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.
V. GOOD-PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
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).
VI. LICENSE OPTIONS
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: