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


Richard Stallman (rms@gnu.org)
Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:36:21 -0700 (MST)


    What type of legal review has this license received?

I have been working closely with Professor Moglen of Columbia Law
School.

    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.

It is unreliable not to include the license in the work that it
covers. Over the years, they could get separated; then the user would
have no clear statement of his or her rights. Things are changing so
fast that it is impossible to be confident that any particular URL
will still work five years from now. It is hard to be confident that
URLs will make any sense twenty years from now.

Perhaps someday, if free software becomes greatly accepted,
these licenses will be available from official sources, and
we could refer to it just as we refer to the US Constitution

    How does one use such a license for a 1 page short
    document (or even a man page)?

For a one-page short document, I would suggest using a very simple
license like the X11 license. For a very small document, the
benefit of copyleft is small too.

    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.

I agree this can be useful. I can't think of what issues are worth
mentioning in this FAQ, but if people suggest issues to me, I can give
it a try it.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Jan 21 2000 - 01:39:29 EST