I wrote: > 1) Draft summaries should clearly be marked. > > 2) The first sentence (which is a paragraph by itself) clearly states > the conclusion, and includes the full name, including version number, > of the license. > > 3) The reasons for the conclusion follow in list form. > > 4) Each reason includes a reference to the relevant portion of the > DFSG. > > 5) An optional section titled "Suggestions" follows the list of reasons. > It includes d-l's suggestions on how to resolve the problem(s). > > 6) A URL for the original license is included. > > 7) The full text of the license is included at the end.
Since no one's objected, I'll replace #4 with: 4) Each reason should refer explicitly to the freedom that is restricted, and how it is restricted. Including the DFSG section number is not necessary. If/when we set up a debian-legal web page, something like this can be included so that people know what to expect in the summary (and so that we have a reference for writing summaries). > - Aggregate works must include a note that it contains OPL work. This > is presumably fine, as it seems to be met simply by including this > license along with the OPL work. Is this worth clarification? > > - A reference to the original, unmodified version must be included. This > has come up before, but I've forgotten the conclusion. Does it > violate the Dessert Island test, as the guy on the island may not know > where the document came from...? I'm going to skip the first point here, unless someone wants to make a case for it. After thinking about it, I'm convinced the second point is a problem, though, so I'll include that. I'll give this new version another couple of days, and if there's been no objection I'll post a real (non-draft) version on Friday (hopefully to be included on any debian-legal license page, which I think is an excellent idea). Below is a new version of the summary, with the original quoted ('> ') and additions/changes quoted with '+ '. > --- Begin *DRAFT* Debian-legal summary of the OPL --- > > Debian-legal has concluded that the OPL (Open Publication License) v1.0 > is not a DFSG-free license. > > - It requires the original publisher and author to appear on all outer > surfaces of a paper copy, and defines how they should appear. This is > a significant restriction on modification (DFSG #3). Change (remove the DFSG reference): + - It requires the original publisher and author to appear on all outer + surfaces of a paper copy, and defines how they should appear. This is + a significant restriction on modification. > - The person who makes any modifications must be identified. According > to the Dissident Test this violates DFSG #3 as well. Change (remove DFSG reference & refer to the DFSG FAQ for the Dissident test): + - The person who makes any modifications must be identified. According + to the Dissident Test this is an unacceptable restriction on + modification. (See the DFSG FAQ[1] for a description of the Dissident + Test.) Then add the following: + - A reference to the original, unmodified version must be included in + any modified versions. This may not be known or available, and may be + impossible under certain circumstances (e.g., the document is included + as help text in a binary). This is an unacceptable restriction on + modification. > Suggestions: > > As a copyleft license for documents debian-legal suggests the GPL with > the optional addition of explanatory text (text which is not part of the > license) explaining that the author believes the preferred form for > making modifications (i.e., source) to be an electronic version in the > original format. > > If the goal is a compromise between allowing paper-only versions and > copyleft, debian-legal suggests using the GPL with an additional > exception to the source distribution requirement for small-scale or > non-commercial distribution. As always, it's best if the exception can > be dropped at the choice of the recipient, so as to maintain GPL > compatibility. > > NOTE: The above is not legal advice. If you need legal advice you > should contact an attorney. > > > The latest version of the Open Publication License can be found at: > > http://opencontent.org/openpub/ > > It is included below in full. And add the link to the DFSG FAQ. This will have to be changed if we move the FAQ to an official location: [1] http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html > --- End *DRAFT* debian-legal summary --- > > ---------------------------------------- > > Open Publication License > v1.0, 8 June 1999 > > > I. REQUIREMENTS ON BOTH UNMODIFIED AND MODIFIED VERSIONS > > The Open Publication works may be reproduced and distributed in whole or in > part, in any medium physical or electronic, provided that the terms of this > license are adhered to, and that this license or an incorporation of it by > reference (with any options elected by the author(s) and/or publisher) is > displayed in the reproduction. > > Proper form for an incorporation by reference is as follows: > > Copyright (c) <year> by <author's name or designee>. This material may be > distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open > Publication License, vX.Y or later (the latest version is presently > available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/). > > The reference must be immediately followed with any options elected by the > author(s) and/or publisher of the document (see section VI). > > Commercial redistribution of Open Publication-licensed material is permitted. > > Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the citation of > the original publisher and author. The publisher and author's names shall > appear on all outer surfaces of the book. On all outer surfaces of the book > the original publisher's name shall be as large as the title of the work and > cited as possessive with respect to the title. > > > II. COPYRIGHT > > The copyright to each Open Publication is owned by its author(s) or designee. > > > III. SCOPE OF LICENSE > > The following license terms apply to all Open Publication works, unless > otherwise explicitly stated in the document. > > Mere aggregation of Open Publication works or a portion of an Open Publication > work with other works or programs on the same media shall not cause this > license to apply to those other works. The aggregate work shall contain a > notice specifying the inclusion of the Open Publication material and > appropriate copyright notice. > > SEVERABILITY. If any part of this license is found to be unenforceable in any > jurisdiction, the remaining portions of the license remain in force. > > NO WARRANTY. Open Publication works are licensed and provided "as is" without > warranty of any kind, express or implied, including, but not limited to, the > implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose or > a warranty of non-infringement. > > > IV. REQUIREMENTS ON MODIFIED WORKS > > All modified versions of documents covered by this license, including > translations, anthologies, compilations and partial documents, must meet the > following requirements: > > 1. The modified version must be labeled as such. > 2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the > modifications dated. > 3. Acknowledgement of the original author and publisher if applicable must be > retained according to normal academic citation practices. > 4. The location of the original unmodified document must be identified. > 5. The original author's (or authors') name(s) may not be used to assert or > imply endorsement of the resulting document without the original author's > (or authors') permission. > > > V. GOOD-PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS > > In addition to the requirements of this license, it is requested from and > strongly recommended of redistributors that: > > 1. If you are distributing Open Publication works on hardcopy or CD-ROM, you > provide email notification to the authors of your intent to redistribute > at least thirty days before your manuscript or media freeze, to give the > authors time to provide updated documents. This notification should > describe modifications, if any, made to the document. > 2. All substantive modifications (including deletions) be either clearly > marked up in the document or else described in an attachment to the > document. > 3. Finally, while it is not mandatory under this license, it is considered > good form to offer a free copy of any hardcopy and CD-ROM expression of an > Open Publication-licensed work to its author(s). > > > VI. LICENSE OPTIONS > > The author(s) and/or publisher of an Open Publication-licensed document may > elect certain options by appending language to the reference to or copy of the > license. These options are considered part of the license instance and must be > included with the license (or its incorporation by reference) in derived > works. > > A. To prohibit distribution of substantively modified versions without the > explicit permission of the author(s). "Substantive modification" is defined as > a change to the semantic content of the document, and excludes mere changes in > format or typographical corrections. > > To accomplish this, add the phrase `Distribution of substantively modified > versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the > copyright holder.' to the license reference or copy. > > B. To prohibit any publication of this work or derivative works in whole or in > part in standard (paper) book form for commercial purposes is prohibited > unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder. > > To accomplish this, add the phrase 'Distribution of the work or derivative of > the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited unless prior > permission is obtained from the copyright holder.' to the license reference or > copy. > > ---------------------------------------- -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03