Re: Is an upgrade to the Open Publication License possible?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that documentation currently in main that uses the OPL could be salvaged if we can convince the controlling body for the OPL to upgrade to a version that's compatible with the DFSG. I have not, however, examined the OPL carefully enough to determine if this is possible without fundamentally changing the license. Well, these are the problems with it: (1) No explicit permission is given for modification, or for distribution of modified versions. Sloppy, sloppy. (2) Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the book. On all outer surfaces of the book the original publisher's name shall be as large as the title of the work and cited as possessive with respect to the title. This needs to be removed (or substantially weakened) for it to be free. Well, if it applies to modified versions, it does, anyway; it might be acceptable for unmodified versions. For modified versions, it would be ridiculously burdensome. (3) All modified versions of documents covered by this license, including translations, anthologies, compilations and partial documents, must meet the following requirements: The modified version must be labeled as such. The person making the modifications must be identified and the modifications dated. Unclear whether this means the person must *really* be identified (not OK) or whether a pseudonym is acceptable (OK). Acknowledgement of the original author and publisher if applicable must be retained according to normal academic citation practices. (fine) The location of the original unmodified document must be identified. This is normally non-free, but might pass under the patch clause if the unmodified document was located in the source package. It becomes deeply obnoxious if derived works are *also* OPL-licensed, but since it's not a copyleft, that can be avoided. The original author's (or authors') name(s) may not be used to assert or imply endorsement of the resulting document without the original author's (or authors') permission. (fine) And, of course, the license options are non-free, but nobody uses them anyway. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is an upgrade to the Open Publication License possible?
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:37:05 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote: And, of course, the license options are non-free, but nobody uses them anyway. I wish this were true... :-( I recall seeing those clearly non-free options used more than once (and take into account that I haven't seen so many OPL'd works!). -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpp3a9zSnlPw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is an upgrade to the Open Publication License possible?
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 03:37 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Well, these are the problems with it: Lemme see if I can condense these down. I had a hard time reading your response. Add explicit permission to make and distribute modified versions. Remove or soften requirements for author publisher names on book covers, esp. for modified versions. Add explicit allowance of pseudonyms for identifying contributors to modified versions. Modify requirement to provide location of original document. These sound more like collateral damage than that the license was designed to be non-free. That is, I think that a salvaged license would be reasonably in the spirit of the original. The controlling body, if such a body exists, wouldn't be betraying the copyright holders' intentions by making these changes, as far as I can tell. I'm going to join the OPL authors' list and see what I can do to get these changes effected. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Is an upgrade to the Open Publication License possible?
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:40:43 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote: I was surprised to see in this list of non-free documentation packages soon to be moved out of main so many works licensed under the Open Publication License (OPL): Well, I was not, taking into account that even Debian website is (IIRC) licensed under this non-free license... I think something should be done to solve this issue too (your approach would nuke'em all, of course, so it's worth trying) http://packages.debian.net/non-free-docs.html I note that the recommended boilerplate used for the OPL is as follows: Copyright (c) year by author's name or designee. This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, vX.Y or later (the latest version is presently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/). I think that documentation currently in main that uses the OPL could be salvaged if we can convince the controlling body for the OPL to upgrade to a version that's compatible with the DFSG. Yes, this would possibly solve all the issues with this license in a single clever move! I have not, however, examined the OPL carefully enough to determine if this is possible without fundamentally changing the license. I've read it (very very quickly) and it seems to me that the OPL resembles more to a non-copyleft license than to the GPL. Maybe we could persuade the controlling body to state that the Expat (a.k.a. MIT) license[1] is elected as the OPL v2.0... That would be the best of all possible outcomes, I think... [1] http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp9Bvvkro5AP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Is an upgrade to the Open Publication License possible?
I was surprised to see in this list of non-free documentation packages soon to be moved out of main so many works licensed under the Open Publication License (OPL): http://packages.debian.net/non-free-docs.html I note that the recommended boilerplate used for the OPL is as follows: Copyright (c) year by author's name or designee. This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, vX.Y or later (the latest version is presently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/). I think that documentation currently in main that uses the OPL could be salvaged if we can convince the controlling body for the OPL to upgrade to a version that's compatible with the DFSG. I have not, however, examined the OPL carefully enough to determine if this is possible without fundamentally changing the license. I realize the OPL is mostly defunct, but are there any ideas about who still has the power to change it? I think the OPL author eventually ended up at Creative Commons... ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
