On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:40:43 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote:
> I was surprised to see in this list of non-free documentation packages
> soon to be moved out of main so many works licensed under the Open
> Publication License (OPL):
Well, I was not, taking into account that even Debian website is (IIRC)
licensed under this non-free license...
I think something should be done to solve this issue too (your approach
would nuke'em all, of course, so it's worth trying)
>
> http://packages.debian.net/non-free-docs.html
>
> I note that the recommended boilerplate used for the OPL 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/).
>
> 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.
Yes, this would possibly solve all the issues with this license in a
single clever move!
> I have not,
> however, examined the OPL carefully enough to determine if this is
> possible without fundamentally changing the license.
I've read it (very very quickly) and it seems to me that the OPL
resembles more to a non-copyleft license than to the GPL.
Maybe we could persuade the controlling body to state that the Expat
(a.k.a. MIT) license[1] is elected as the OPL v2.0...
That would be the best of all possible outcomes, I think...
[1] http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpIXgIe3ITQe.pgp
Description: PGP signature