Just a quick clarification, the OPL is (confusedly)
used to indicate one of 2 licenses:
The Open Content License
http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml
(this one is not strictly a "free" license according
to the FSF definition)
and
The Open Publication Lincense
http://opencontent.org/openpub/
I do not think that Egon was refererring to the Gnu
FDL
--- Egon Schmid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
>
> > - 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.
>
> > - do not put limitations on further distribution
> of
> > sources and binaries
>
> There is no clear distinction between sources and
> binaries whith the
> documentation.
>
> > 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?
>
> > please have a look at the preamble of the GFDL, it
> clearly says:
> >
> > 0. PREAMBLE
> >
> > The purpose of this License is to make a manual,
> textbook, or other
> > written document "free" in the sense of freedom:
> to assure everyone
> > the effective freedom to copy and redistribute
> it, with or without
> > modifying it, either commercially or
> noncommercially. [...]
> >
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/fdl.html
> >
> > (german translation under
> > http://nautix.sourceforge.net/docs/fdl.de.html)
>
> I haven't it read yet, but it doesn't sounds like a
> GNU OPL. The text
> you have cited is probably incomplete.
>
> -Egon
=====
--- Jesus M. Castagnetto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
