RE: simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)
From: SamBC [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Really??? What was wrong with it - I did it all by hand, so I thought it wouldn't have any weirdness [DJW:] No DOCTYPE and blockquote immediately subordinate to ul, see http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.simplelinux.org%2Flegal%2 FsLODL.html What is the version number for 'current' w3c standard HTML? I will specify that as the example when I find out. [DJW:] 4.01 for HTML, XHTML 1.0 for the latest released standard. Note that there are probably no fully compliant browsers for either of these. CSS2 for style sheets. The HTML document may well be auto-generated and not the true revisable form document. Still transparent though - that is the condition, rather than the original form being required. You think I should speify original form? [DJW:] That's weaker than the full GPL, which requires the form normally used for making changes. Some people have proposed using obfuscated source to get round the GPL, but this requirement tends to invalidate that attack. [DJW:] -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Re: simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)
begin nights quotation: Consider:You want people to be able to copy freely (can do that in copyright notification easily, yeah). You want people to be able to modify, comment, and re-use the work, while it remaining *completely* clear which parts are the original work (without having to read a sperate document). You want the license to clearly tackle issues such as quotation, referencing, republication in other (non-transparent) media. The only other liecnse doing this is the GNU FDL, which does it wrong IMHO, by being too complex and legalistic, and rather unclear. I quite agree. I've not yet found a licence I consider reasonable for those purposes. -- Cheers, "Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm Rick Moen for a day. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the rest of his life." -- John A. Hrastar
Re: simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)
- Original Message - From: "Dave J Woolley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] [DJW:] No DOCTYPE and blockquote immediately subordinate to ul, see I didn't realise that was required - I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that w3c HTML included defaults for all that 4.01 for HTML, XHTML 1.0 for the latest released standard. Note that there are probably no fully compliant browsers for either of these. CSS2 for style sheets. But they may be considered both standard and trabsparent, so I may use thm as examples within the letter of the license, anyone disagree? Still transparent though - that is the condition, rather than the original form being required. You think I should speify original form? [DJW:] That's weaker than the full GPL, which requires the form normally used for making changes. Some people have proposed using obfuscated source to get round the GPL, but this requirement tends to invalidate that attack. I am deliberately looser than GPL here to give the freedom to publish in varied media (including material media with certain conditions). I may write a commentary to clear up the philosophy of the sLODL SamBC
RE: simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)
From: SamBC [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] http://www.simplelinux.org/legal/sLODL.html Opinions on OS-ness and legality, and general good/badness, pls [DJW:] The HTML is invalid, although it makes an exceptionally good attempt to use elements for their intended purpose (possibly top 2 percentile in that respect!). "Transparent Media/Format" - Any format/media of storage in which the text and graphics are machine-readable and editable, using programs which are available both free of charge and free from restrictions of use (eg HTML, plain ASCII text, XML where the document data type is 'free'). You mean document type defintion, not document data type. A "free" DTD is not sufficient as DTDs only define the mechanically checkable syntax rules not the semantics. There is an alternative, called schemas, that goes a lot more towards semantics, but I've still to read up on them. With a DTD, it might be possible to make Word 2000 "HTML" comply with this example. HTML is too loose. Often people mean a combination of the tags from published HTML DTDs with proprietory tags (often in an order that cannot possibly be described by a DTD or is not descibed by the one they claim), with GIFs, JPEGs, Javascript and styles sheets. Many may even include Flash and other ActiveX components. People may consider Word 2000 "HTML" (even though it is really XML and requires Word to edit sensibly) as HTML. Particularly if you include proprietory elements, you need commercial browsers, which have export restrictions with respect to about half a dozen countries. The HTML document may well be auto-generated and not the true revisable form document. The examples exclude much more open SGML document types than HTML, like docbook. The images associated with HTML may well not be the revisable form (as well as the GIF patent problem). The revisable form may contain layers or may be in a vector drawing format. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Re: simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)
Only one I saw was GNU FDL which was even less simple, and had some clauses I disliked. sLODL was as simple as I could make it while making it legally watertight (AFAIK, as IANAL). I did research, and the subsectioning is to make it easier, and definitions are a legal requirement in many jusirsdictions. What else was so complex? Long yes, in order to be clear and not confusing. The only way to make it shorter I could see was to make it clearer. Any other OS-(or Free-)style licenses you know of, do tell. FDL is absolutely horrible, but others may be good. (oh, and while I hope the license is 'simple' that isn't what the name signifies, it signifies it is originated by the Movement for simpleLinux, which aims to simplify Linux usage, but the license is a legal document so can't be that simple) SamBC - Original Message - From: "David Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "SamBC" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 3:09 AM Subject: Re: simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL) On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, SamBC wrote: Okay, this license is in the queue to be dealt with by the OSI board, but I would like to start using it meantime without certification, and would appreciate opinions... It's way too long and complicated to deserve the name "simple". Far from it! There are other OSS-like licenses for documentation that should fit your needs. Anything wrong with them that you want to use this one instead? -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)
- Original Message - From: "SamBC" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Only one I saw was GNU FDL which was even less simple, and had some clauses I disliked. sLODL was as simple as I could make it while making it legally watertight (AFAIK, as IANAL). I did research, and the subsectioning is to make it easier, and definitions are a legal requirement in many jusirsdictions. What else was so complex? Long yes, in order to be clear and not confusing. The only way to make it shorter I could see was to make it clearer. Sorry, I mean less clear... (bad slip) Any other OS-(or Free-)style licenses you know of, do tell. FDL is absolutely horrible, but others may be good. (oh, and while I hope the license is 'simple' that isn't what the name signifies, it signifies it is originated by the Movement for simpleLinux, which aims to simplify Linux usage, but the license is a legal document so can't be that simple) SamBC - Original Message - From: "David Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "SamBC" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 3:09 AM Subject: Re: simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL) On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, SamBC wrote: Okay, this license is in the queue to be dealt with by the OSI board, but I would like to start using it meantime without certification, and would appreciate opinions... It's way too long and complicated to deserve the name "simple". Far from it! There are other OSS-like licenses for documentation that should fit your needs. Anything wrong with them that you want to use this one instead? -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, SamBC wrote: Okay, this license is in the queue to be dealt with by the OSI board, but I would like to start using it meantime without certification, and would appreciate opinions... It's way too long and complicated to deserve the name "simple". Far from it! There are other OSS-like licenses for documentation that should fit your needs. Anything wrong with them that you want to use this one instead? -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
