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


Wade Hampton (whampton@staffnet.com)
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:46:10 -0500


Guylhem Aznar wrote:
>
> 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.
Great. Any other legal review?
>
> > is quite good and should be considered for the ODE.
>
> To my mind it's more free than OPL.
I need to review the OPL as well.
>
> > 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 :
I agree -- Any comments anyone?
>
> > 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.
For collections where the docs are mergeed into one doc, as I read it,
the answer would be yes. For loose collections like an FTP site
or WWW site, and where the docs have not been aggregated
into one doc, I am not so sure.
>
> > 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)
If the license is changed to add it as an option, right?
>
> > 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.
Yep, all takes time and education.
>
> > 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 ?
That, examples, and common pitfalls (what NOT to do)
would be most appreciated me thinks.

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 Fri Jan 21 2000 - 10:48:16 EST