On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 15:50, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
> here's an ascii version of the license section my "manual and beyond"
> RFC paper i'd used as a preparation of my conference talk in frankfurt
> 
> i tried to analyse the copyright situation and the choice of licenses
> as i saw it back then (almost half a year ago) and have added a small
> update:

Thanks for the rundown, Hartmut. Personally, I would lean toward the
GFDL or the OPL(b)--but I haven't really studied either of them.


Torben

>    License and Copyright
> 
>     The current phpdoc repository is licensed under the GPL and
>     copyright holders are the members of the PHP Documentation Group as
>     listed on the Manual front page. As the GPL focuses on code and not
>     on documentation content it is not really the right choice for
>     protecting the manual. There has been some discussion on the phpdoc
>     mailing list every once in a while but no conclusion has been
>     reached yet. So i'll try to present some of the licenses that might
>     fit and their goals, pros and cons.
> 
> 
> 
>     License Goals
> 
>      Whatever the new license will be, it has to make sure that
>      copyright is kept intact and that nobody but the copyright holders
>      may change the license, neither in original nor in modified form
>      and that the original authors and contributers get the credits
>      they deserve. It has not become clear whether commercial
>      distribution should be possible or not.
> 
> 
> 
>     The FreeBSD Documentation License
> 
>      The FreeBSD Documentation License is very much like the modified
>      BSD license. It does not restrict redistribution and/or
>      modification at all as long as the license and copyright notice is
>      kept intact.
> 
> 
>     The Open Content License
> 
>      The Open Content License allows modifications as long as the
>      license and copyright are kept intact and modified versions are
>      clearly marked as such, but it does not permit
>      charging for the distribution of the content itself, you may only
>      charge for media and for additional services you provide related
>      to the content.
> 
> 
> 
>     The Open Publishing License
> 
>      The Open Publishing License (not to be confused with the Open
>      Content License) goes more into the details of publishing and
>      defines fair use of content. It does, for example, require that
>      the original authors have to be printed on the cover if the
>      content is published in book form.
>      The original license is rather liberal regarding modifications and
>      commercial publishing, but there are two license options that can
>      be added to deny substantial modifications or commercial
>      publishing without special permission.
> 
> 
> 
>     The GNU Free Documentation License
> 
>      This License goes even more into detail as it was the only one of
>      those presented here that was created with the help of
>      professional lawyers. It tries to define the details of fair use
>      similar to the Open Publishing License, but with a slightly
>      different focus. It does not prevent modifications or commercial
>      distribution as long as copyright and license are kept intact and
>      modifications are made available in source form.
> 
> 
> 
>     Conclusion (sort of)
> 
>      IMHO commercial distribution of the PHP documentation should not
>      be restricted as the distribution of PHP itself is not restricted
>      in that way, too. On the other hand the FreeBSD Documentation
>      License, that is very similar to the PHP License, does not really
>      solve the issues in which the current GPL lacks. In the spirit of
>      the current license the GNU Free  Documentation
>      License should be the best choice. All contributions to the manual
>      have been made under the GPL, and although the copyright holders
>      that the copyright for these contributions has been transfered to
>      have the right to change the license for future versions they should
>      perhaps stay in the same spirit when changing the license for
>      practical reasons. If the final decision regarding commercial
>      redistribution goes against me, then the Open Publication License
>      including option 'B' should be the best choice for a new manual
>      license.
> 
> PS: this has been written almost half a year ago now and some things
>      have changed since then. we have a new, BSDish Zend Engine license
>      and ZendAPI documentation has been bundled with the manual and
>      is even about to be merged with it on the source level
>      so today i'd rather suggest to just switch to the OPL and use
>      the same options as the zendAPI doc
> 
-- 
 Torben Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 http://www.thebuttlesschaps.com
 http://www.hybrid17.com
 http://www.inflatableeye.com
 +1.604.709.0506

Reply via email to