225 lines
11 KiB
HTML
225 lines
11 KiB
HTML
<!-- MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
|
|
<!--X-Subject: Re: Updating the OpenContent license -->
|
|
<!--X-From-R13: Rnivq Znjlre <qnirNynsa.bet> -->
|
|
<!--X-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 05:01:17 -0500 (EST) -->
|
|
<!--X-Message-Id: 20000119015915.A204@localhost -->
|
|
<!--X-Content-Type: text/plain -->
|
|
<!--X-Reference: 38833524.8A0751C4@opencontent.org -->
|
|
<!--X-Reference: 20000117235223.A150@localhost -->
|
|
<!--X-Reference: 38846B4E.10CEF3@linuxcare.com -->
|
|
<!--X-Head-End-->
|
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML//EN">
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>Re: Updating the OpenContent license</title>
|
|
<link rev="made" href="mailto:dave@lafn.org">
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<!--X-Body-Begin-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Header-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Header-End-->
|
|
<!--X-TopPNI-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
[<a href="msg01085.html">Date Prev</a>][<a href="msg01087.html">Date Next</a>][<a href="msg01098.html">Thread Prev</a>][<a href="msg01093.html">Thread Next</a>][<a href="maillist.html#01086">Date Index</a>][<a href="threads.html#01086">Thread Index</a>]
|
|
<!--X-TopPNI-End-->
|
|
<!--X-MsgBody-->
|
|
<!--X-Subject-Header-Begin-->
|
|
<h1>Re: Updating the OpenContent license</h1>
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Subject-Header-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Head-of-Message-->
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><em>To</em>: Deb Richardson <<A HREF="mailto:deb@linuxcare.com">deb@linuxcare.com</A>></li>
|
|
<li><em>Subject</em>: Re: Updating the OpenContent license</li>
|
|
<li><em>From</em>: David Lawyer <<A HREF="mailto:dave@lafn.org">dave@lafn.org</A>></li>
|
|
<li><em>Date</em>: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:59:15 -0800</li>
|
|
<li><em>Cc</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org">ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org</A>, <A HREF="mailto:debian-legal@lists.debian.org">debian-legal@lists.debian.org</A>, <A HREF="mailto:discuss@opencontent.org">discuss@opencontent.org</A>, <A HREF="mailto:rms@gnu.org">rms@gnu.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>In-reply-to</em>: <<a href="msg01083.html">38846B4E.10CEF3@linuxcare.com</a>></li>
|
|
<li><em>Mail-followup-to</em>: Deb Richardson <deb@linuxcare.com>,ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org,discuss@opencontent.org, rms@gnu.org</li>
|
|
<li><em>References</em>: <<a href="msg01077.html">38833524.8A0751C4@opencontent.org</a>> <<a href="msg01082.html">20000117235223.A150@localhost</a>> <<a href="msg01083.html">38846B4E.10CEF3@linuxcare.com</a>></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-cc</em>: recipient list not shown: ;</li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-date</em>: 19 Jan 2000 09:59:45 -0000</li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-from</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-message-id</em>: <E_w7m.A.JPD.QsYh4@murphy></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-sender</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>User-agent</em>: Mutt/1.0pre3i</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<!--X-Head-of-Message-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Body-of-Message-->
|
|
<pre>
|
|
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 08:31:58AM -0500, Deb Richardson wrote:
|
|
> David Lawyer wrote:
|
|
>
|
|
> > Since Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation has drafted a
|
|
> > "GNU Free Documentation License" I suggest that the Open Publication
|
|
> > License (OPL) be merged with it.
|
|
>
|
|
> I think that this is an extremely bad idea. Having more licenses,
|
|
> particularly those like the OPL and the new FSF licenses, is a good
|
|
> thing. Having only one license doesn't do much for an author's "freedom
|
|
> of choice", really, particularly when you're talking about removing the
|
|
> aspects of the OPL that make it so attractive in many situations.
|
|
>
|
|
I was talking about the use of OPL for technical docs. For
|
|
non-technical docs I would keep most of the "aspects" of OPL that you
|
|
find "so attractive".
|
|
|
|
It's important to have a pool of documentation that can be combined
|
|
and formed into new documentation. For example, if there are two
|
|
documents on modems each with it's own strengths an weaknesses, it
|
|
would be advantageous if they could be combined into to new document.
|
|
Duplicate material would be discarded and a new document would be
|
|
produced from the old that is much better and complete than either of
|
|
the two original documents. This can't be done (in most cases) if
|
|
they are licensed under two different licenses. This is because most
|
|
licenses require that the new work be licensed under the same license.
|
|
If license A says that any derived work must be licensed under A and
|
|
license B says that any derived work must be licensed under B, one
|
|
cannot take parts from A and B and put them together. There are cases
|
|
where one might want to merge 3 or more documents or just take
|
|
portions from other docs to create a doc on a more narrow topic.
|
|
|
|
Thus from this point of view, having more licenses is a very bad
|
|
thing. Authors of course have complete freedom of choice anyway since
|
|
they can always write their own license. But for free technical
|
|
documentation which can be freely reused, it's necessary to have one
|
|
recommended license (or the like). An alternative would be to have
|
|
say 3 free licenses A, B, and C each of which would say that one may
|
|
license any derived work under either A, B, or C. Then you would have
|
|
interoperability.
|
|
|
|
> > The OPL lets the author choose an option in the license regarding
|
|
> > modification. One case is where one may freely modify the
|
|
> > publication without needing to contact the original author (or
|
|
> > current maintainer). Another option (which I don't like) is to
|
|
> > allow modification only if the original author consents. Suppose
|
|
> > the original author can't be located, is non-responsive, or is not
|
|
> > cooperative in permitting needed modifications. I think that for
|
|
> > free publications, anyone should ultimately have the right to
|
|
> > modify them.
|
|
>
|
|
> I, as an author, would very much like to be able to choose whether
|
|
> others are allowed to modify my released documents or not. I would
|
|
> also like to be able to choose who has and hasn't print publication
|
|
> rights. Granted, restricting print publication rights is a very
|
|
> serious restriction. Documents licensed under such restrictions are
|
|
> not appropriate for the Open Source Writers Group project (you can
|
|
> read our Licensing Policy at <A HREF="http://www.oswg.org/docs/about.html">http://www.oswg.org/docs/about.html</A>).
|
|
> As an author, however, I would very much like to have that choice.
|
|
> More importantly, the ability to restrict modifications is very
|
|
> important to me. If I release a paper or essay, for example, I
|
|
> would like to control who makes modifications and what modifications
|
|
> are made.
|
|
>
|
|
An author has even more "rights" if they copyright their work without
|
|
any license, but this restricts distribution and hurts the consumer.
|
|
A purpose of free documentation is to provide the most freedom for
|
|
readers to obtain information, not for authors to unreasonably restrict
|
|
the modification of their work. If the control exercised by the
|
|
author is reasonable, then I think this is one option that I would
|
|
agree with. But if the author lets an important doc get out of date
|
|
and the doc can't be modified because the author can't be located
|
|
then this is wrong.
|
|
|
|
> Technical documentation is a different story. I agree that Open
|
|
> Content technical documentation should, wherever possible, be
|
|
> released under a license that allows for free distribution,
|
|
> modification, and publication. But technical documentation is only
|
|
> one category of the documents that could possibly be covered by the
|
|
> Open Publication License. The OPL is, in my opinion, an excellent
|
|
> foundation for a more generally usable license.
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
Why didn't you say this at first? In the context of LDP (and Debian)
|
|
we are all talking about technical documentation. However I think
|
|
that OPL when used without the "modify only with author's permission"
|
|
is a good start for a license for technical documentation. That's why
|
|
I think that it should be merged with the GNU one. LDP and GNU could
|
|
then use this license but would stipulate that options intended
|
|
primarily for non-technical works would not be allowed for LDP and GNU
|
|
documents.
|
|
|
|
For fictional works, it doesn't do much harm if one can't freely
|
|
modify it. Even in this case one might need to modify it to make it
|
|
morally "better".
|
|
|
|
> It also has to be accepted that not everyone is going to release
|
|
> their documents under a license that is acceptable to everyone.
|
|
> That's just part of the game. We cannot _force_ authors to release
|
|
> their docs under a certain license (or at all, for that matter), so
|
|
> why would we work to eliminate valid licensing options in an effort
|
|
> to create a single license? It's simply non-sensical, and
|
|
> completely goes against the whole idea of "freedom" in terms of
|
|
> allowing an author's freedom of choice.
|
|
|
|
Having one license means more freedom for readers since by the free
|
|
use of a pool of documents, more and better free documents will be
|
|
created. I would propose that what creates more freedom for readers
|
|
also will make authors feel good about it. I'm not proposing to force
|
|
authors to use a certain license but we should explain the reasons for
|
|
it and strongly encourage them to do so. Of course we can't do this
|
|
until we think we have such a license and that is what I'm proposing
|
|
we attempt to create.
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
David Lawyer
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
|
|
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
</pre>
|
|
|
|
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
|
|
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<ul><li><strong>Follow-Ups</strong>:
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="01093" href="msg01093.html">Re: Updating the OpenContent license</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org></li></ul></li>
|
|
</ul></li></ul>
|
|
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
|
|
<!--X-References-->
|
|
<ul><li><strong>References</strong>:
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="01077" href="msg01077.html">Updating the OpenContent license</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> David Wiley <dw2@opencontent.org></li></ul></li>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="01082" href="msg01082.html">Re: Updating the OpenContent license</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> David Lawyer <dave@lafn.org></li></ul></li>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="01083" href="msg01083.html">Re: Updating the OpenContent license</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> Deb Richardson <deb@linuxcare.com></li></ul></li>
|
|
</ul></li></ul>
|
|
<!--X-References-End-->
|
|
<!--X-BotPNI-->
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Prev by Date:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg01085.html">Re: sgml-tools for Linuxdoc</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Next by Date:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg01087.html">Re: Updating the OpenContent license</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Previous by thread:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg01098.html">Re: Updating the OpenContent license</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Next by thread:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg01093.html">Re: Updating the OpenContent license</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Index(es):
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="maillist.html#01086"><strong>Date</strong></a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="threads.html#01086"><strong>Thread</strong></a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Footer-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|