Egon Schmid wrote:
>
> Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
> >
> > Egon Schmid wrote:
> > > To make the story short, it isn't allowed to earn money with other
> > > peoples work.
> >
> > no, it is not allowed if the creator didn't give you
> > permission to do so, which the e.g. GPL definetly does
> > as long as you stick by the rules
>
> Do you have something against, to change the license?
>
> > - do not change the copyright
>
> Why?
because this is written in the license
a license is a contract between two parties
and having a contract one side can change at will
without confirmation by the other side is not worth
the paper it is written on
> > - provide sources on demand (and without putting additional
> > fees on this other then handling/shipping) to everyone who
> > has your compiled version, has not violated the license
> > himself and asks for it
>
> I don't see that this would happens.
could you please be more specific ?
> > - do not put limitations on further distribution of
> > sources and binaries
>
> There is no clear distinction between sources and binaries whith the
> documentation.
yes, that why the GPL does not really fit,
but in our case we could treat the XML files
as source and the HTML/PS/PDF/CHM as binaries
so it at least fits better then in other documentation
cases
> > not a single word about not making money from it in the GPL
> > besides that you must not make *additional* money from giving
> > the sources to whoever rightfully demands to get them
>
> I was asking about the change from GPL to OPL. This have to do mainly
> with the copyright.
> > the GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License) you suggested yourself
> > is based on the very same idea, but is a better fit for documentation
> > than the GPL which concentrates on 'source' and 'binary' and
> > has some other extensions required by laws in the publishing
> > area which do not apply to sourcecode
>
> How does that relate to the (GNU)OPL?
there is no such thing as a GNU(OPL)
the GNU documentation license is the GDFL
you should know that to RMS and friends the O-Word is the bad word
and the F-word is the good word ;)
> > please have a look at the preamble of the GFDL, it clearly says:
> I haven't it read yet, but it doesn't sounds like a GNU OPL. The text
> you have cited is probably incomplete.
so then you should read carefully before you write
i guess you are refering to either the Open Content or
the Open Publication Licens as published on
http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml
although there are even more Licenses called OPL
like the Open Patent License
http://www.openpatents.org/license/
or the Open Public License
http://www.objectweb.org/jonas/jonasOPL1_0.htm
whatever you are refering to, it is definetly *not*
a GNU license
for a comparison of Documentation Licenses see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#DocumentationLicenses
