The principles may apply, but the licenses can be and are different. The reason for that particular clauses there is because there have been several instances where people have basically published the manual contents in book form, removing the copyright and the information about the original author, and putting his or her name instead. Basically fraud and plagiarism.
We contemplated using the FDL at some point, but the OPL seemed more reasonable. I will refer you to the discussions about this topic that we have had in this list before, as well as the documents from the PHPDOC meeting from last year (IIRC). I still do not understand the problem you have, you can redistribute the manual w/o problem as long as you keep the appropriate attributions, now if you want to put material from it into your book and will modify the content too, then you need to ask for permission. Usually not a problem if you document your sources. A printed book is not freely distributable, except some few exceptions in which the author also makes it available online for download. We are not trying to strong arm people and make money out of the documentation, as deplorably some other projects are trying to do now, most notably JBOSS, in which you need to pay to access docs about the latest releases. The intention of the license for the manual is to avoid missappropriation of the material the community has produced. --- Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 11:35:29AM +0200, Gabor > Hojtsy wrote: > > >Hi folks - I noticed that the new PHP > documentation licence elects to > > >use this option of the OPL: > > > > > > Distribution of substantively modified > versions of this document > > > is prohibited without the explicit permission > of the copyright > > > holder. > > > > > >This is a significant restriction over the > previous licence, and is not > > >in the spirit (if not the letter) of the Open > Source Definition/Debian > > >Free Software Guidelines: that modification is > unrestricted is an > > >important part of free software. > > > > > >Would you consider removing this option? > > > > Is the documentation software? > > Obviously not, though I find it hard to convince > myself that the > principles of free software should not also apply to > free > documentation--hence the question. > > Regards, > > joe ===== --- Jesus M. Castagnetto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
