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

Re: Is an upgrade to the Open Publication License possible?

evan@debian.org wrote:
> I think that documentation currently in main that uses the OPL could be 
salvaged if we can convince the controlling body for the OPL to upgrade to a 
version that's compatible with the DFSG. I have not, however, examined the 
OPL carefully enough to determine if this is possible without fundamentally 
changing the license.

Well, these are the problems with it:
(1) No explicit permission is given for modification, or for distribution of 
modified versions.  Sloppy, sloppy.

> 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. 
This needs to be removed (or substantially weakened) for it to be free.  Well, 
if it applies to modified versions, it does, anyway; it might be acceptable 
for unmodified versions.  For modified versions, it would be ridiculously 

> All modified versions of documents covered by this license, including 
translations, anthologies, compilations and partial documents, must meet the 
following requirements: 
> The modified version must be labeled as such. 
> The person making the modifications must be identified and the modifications 
Unclear whether this means the person must *really* be identified (not OK) or 
whether a pseudonym is acceptable (OK).

> Acknowledgement of the original author and publisher if applicable must be 
retained according to normal academic citation practices. 
> The location of the original unmodified document must be identified. 
This is normally non-free, but might pass under the "patch clause" if the 
"unmodified document" was located in the source package.  It becomes deeply 
obnoxious if derived works are *also* OPL-licensed, but since it's not a 
copyleft, that can be avoided.

> 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.

And, of course, the license "options" are non-free, but nobody uses them 

Reply to: