Re: [ode] [rms@gnu.org: Re: Updating the OpenContent license]


Wade Hampton (whampton@staffnet.com)
Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:24:20 -0500


Guylhem Aznar wrote:
>
> Interesting.
>
> I personally prefer GFDL.
[snip]
> GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.0
> DRAFT

What type of legal review has this license received? It
is quite good and should be considered for the ODE.

One concern as I read the license is that it requires the
document to include the full license in its text, not provide
just the reference paragraph and a pointer to the license. As
it is a standard, published work, under version control, a
clear, precise reference should be adequate (technical
opinion, is there a legal reading on this issue anyone?).
Including the full license in each text WILL lead to
significant bloat of the text. For example an online collection
of howtos might only include 1 copy of the license.

How does one use such a license for a 1 page short
document (or even a man page)? As I see it, one could
either put it in the public domain, use a short alternate
license, or just include the reference paragraph?

As I understand them, some of the overall objectives of ODE
are getting content, facilitating standard formats, etc.
As a license like this is rather long and most of us are
not trained in law, it will be VERY easy for authors or
modifiers to violate this inadvertently.

Richard, some guidelines for using this document,
including pitfalls, what to watch out for, etc., would
be nice. Some clear-cut examples of what is NOT allowed
would also make it easier for non-attorneys.... Such
a document would clearly be OUTSIDE of the license.

My 2 cents.

Cheers,

-- 
W. Wade, Hampton  <whampton@staffnet.com>  
Support:  Linux Knowledge Base Organization  http://linuxkb.org/
Linux is stability, performance, flexibility, and overall very fun!
The difference between `Unstable' and `Usable' is only two characters:
NT



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Jan 20 2000 - 12:10:03 EST