On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:01:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Do they intend this as a "notes" or a "license"?
They call this "notice" but it can be safely considered a license
because is the only set of statemente that regulates the book
redistribution.
> > - commercial products that include this document are themselves
> > compliant with the DSFG and don't consist of this document only.
>
> What's the point of the first statement: "are themselves compliant with
> the DSFG"? The statement doesn't make it any more true. A license
> saying "this license is DSFG-compliant" might well confuse people if the
> it was *not*. Even if it's found DSFG-compliant today, the interpretation
> might change. (Or the DSFG may change. Err, right.)
>
> Actually, they're saying that "commercial products that include this
> document" are, not the document itself, which is even messier.
Ok, also this version isn't ready to fits the DFSG requirements, no
problem.
Anyway, from the reported point of the O'Reilly notice, is clear what
O'Reilly wants: they wants that commercial redistributions of the book
must be in aggregate form (which from latest posts seems not to be a
problem with DFSG) _and_ must be "free", i.e. they wants that the
aggregate result of the redistribution can be freely used again.
So, debian-legal guys, could you manage to write down a "notice" like
the reported, possibly and hopely changing only the above point, that
is ok with DFSG or there exists an intrinsic problem that can be solved?
If you manage to do so, I can show it to O'Reilly publisher and I'm
quite sure that this will be ok for him.
This, obviously, if I had correctly understood what O'Reilly wants to
do with this book.
Toward a new hope ...,
Tnx,
Cheers.
--
Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <zack@cs.unibo.it> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy
- Information wants to be Open -
Attachment:
pgplXAXUbRzGG.pgp
Description: PGP signature