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


Guylhem Aznar (guylhemlistes@free.fr)
Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:19:23 +0100


On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 10:24:20AM -0500, Wade Hampton wrote:
> Guylhem Aznar wrote:
> > Interesting.
> >
> > I personally prefer GFDL.
> [snip]
> > GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.0
>
> What type of legal review has this license received? It

IIRC, the FSF had a lawyer reread it.

> is quite good and should be considered for the ODE.

To my mind it's more free than OPL.

> 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

This should be added as an option for ppl who don't want a license
longer than the document, ala GPL :

    <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
    Copyright (C) yyyy <name of author>

    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
    the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
    (at your option) any later version.

    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
    GNU General Public License for more details.

    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
    Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA

> 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.

It is allowed by 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?

A short reference paragraph (cf GPL example)

> 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.

It will take time to be used to it, just like the GPL.

> 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.

A commented reading ?

-- 
Guylhem P. Aznar                               http://www.linuxdoc.org
guylhem \@/ metalab.unc.edu             http://metalab.unc.edu/guylhem
"They who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  -----  Benjamin Franklin



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Jan 20 2000 - 19:44:12 EST