Deb Richardson wrote:
>
> "John D. Blair" wrote:
> >
> > Deb,
> > What's your reasoning for disallowing distribution of derivative works?
> > Is it just that the licenses for this sort of thing are young and
> > perhaps haven't yet been properly worked through?
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question. By "derivative works", I assume
> you're talking about documentation that is largely based on other docs,
> right? If these derivative works can be freely reformatted and
> distributed, then there's no problem with them being included. If
> reformatting/distribution is restricted, however, there is a problem.
You listed two requirements:
1) it can be freely reformatted
2) it can be freely distributed
You're ignoring the case where an author will only allow redistribution
of verbatim copies.
This is a common clause for people to include in their copyright
statements for materials that are posted to the web. rms puts this in
his copyright clause whenever he posts a statement on the internet.
This protects, amongst other things, against material being taken out of
context, and from derivitive works that contain incorrect material from
reflecting poorly on the original author.
I think its important for an open-source Linux documentation project to
allow redistribution of derivative works. By derivative I mean, for
example, allowing errors to be corrected, new material added,
out-of-date material from being removed, the work being incorporated
into other work, etc. It also protects against stagnation in
documentation. If the original author ceases to maintain the work for
whatever reason other people can take over. This is in the same spirit
as the GPL.
I think you intended this, but it isn't required by your two
requirements.
The way the Open Content License states this is:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the OpenContent or any portion
of it, thus forming works based on the Content, and distribute such
modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that
you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified content to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed it, the exact nature and content of the
changes, and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the OC or any part thereof,
to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the
terms of this License, unless otherwise permitted under applicable Fair
Use law.
The complete text of this license is available here:
http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml
Macmillan's license for Open Content titles under the New Riders imprint
is not the same exact wording, but as far as I can tell has the same
result.
I'm not sure we should require that people use the OPL for works they
want to contribute. Just as there are open source licenses which differ
from the GPL, there are conceivable open-content licenses that differ
from the OPL. However, I think we should at least express a strong bias
towards using the OPL.
later,
-john.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Blair author/software engineer/linux
specialist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "it's easier to fix UNIX than to use
Windows"
