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


Wade Hampton (whampton@staffnet.com)
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:11:40 -0500


Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> What type of legal review has this license received?
>
> I have been working closely with Professor Moglen of Columbia Law
> School.
Great! Any other legal opinions on it yet?
>
> 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.

On one hand, I agree, but the way the GPL is typically used, someone
can reference the GPL, but omit it in their distribution package. If
the full license is omitted, the reader is referred to the FSF.

I think the point I am making is that the GPL and such a license as this
are becoming matters of public record. Perhaps have NIST or someone
keep them as official standards? Corporations and organizations
come and go whereas Governments are more stable? Maybe get the
licenses registered as Internet STD's?
>
> 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
I agree but think that that day is now. Look at the market share
of GNU/Linux, Apache, etc. Maybe the FSF need to setup a
standards body and track license and other open source standards?
 
> 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.
However, a short 1 page document such as a security document
(e.g., DON'T DO THIS TO YOUR SYSTEM OR YOU OPEN IT UP TO HACKERS)
could benefit greatly from a good license. Without it,
such a document could be altered to appear genuine.... Thhis is
also a validation issue (which is most-likely outside the scope
of the license).

>
> 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.
The objective would be to make it easier for someone to use the license
and avoid any pitfalls. Remember, most programmers can barely write,
let alone follow a legal document, and they will often be the ones
creating such documents using this license.

One option might consist of an annotated version of the license
with clear examples of what to do and not to do, plus general
implementation comments. The idea would be to facilitate the
license's adoption and usage plus to anticipate some of the problems
that WILL occur when moving text to such a license.

This could be comprised of multiple docs including:
1. examples of 2-3 documents (different front/end matter, text, etc.)
2. specifically what you can't do (e.g., the endorsements)
3. clear examples what would be a violation
4. details and examples of inclusion of material from other sources
    and other copyright problems
5. legal opinions on the license (multiple lawyers' take on it)

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 - 12:16:46 EST