(Note: someone responded to me directly on this thread, and I deleted the msg. Whoever did, please do respond to all the list.)
Just in case you had not read it, see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html a good position piece by RMS titled "Free Software and Free Manuals". Also look at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#DocumentationLicenses RMS in principle does not like the OPL as a "Free License" w/ the options enabled, but then again "Open Source Software" != "Free Software". BTW, another nice option to look into is the "Creative Commons" pick-your-license approach: http://creativecommons.org/license/ One thing is that the OPL allows for permission to be given when major modifications are done on the work, but does not force that those be shared. The Creative Commons "Attribution-Sharealike" license does enforce that: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/ (Just more fuel to the fire) --- "Jesus M. Castagnetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 ===== --- Jesus M. Castagnetto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
