> 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.
Verbatim as in "no changes to content or formatting", but still "freely
redistributable"?
> 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 out-of-date material from being removed, the work being incorporated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.
I don't think it should be required, but the requirements I've listed
don't keep people from using a license that allows for it.
Are you saying that "freely modifiable" should be a requirement? If so,
I disagree. If, for example, I want to write a paper and publish it
under a license that allows it to be freely reformatted and
redistributed, I should be able to do so within the scope of the OSWG.
If I don't want other people messing with my work, I think that's
valid. If other people have suggestions or spot errors, they're free to
email me about them, but it remains for me to decide whether those
changes should be made.
I wouldn't write a paper and release it under a license that allowed for
it to be freely modified. I would, on the other hand, write a user
manual under a license that allowed for it to be freely modified. I
think that both of these are valid, so long as they can be freely
reformatted and redistributed, and I think that both should be allowed
into the OSWG documentation set.
When I set forth the two characteristics, these were not exclusive, they
were just the only two that I felt should be required. If an author
wishes to release docs under a license that allows for those docs to be
freely modified, then he/she can do so and still include them in the
OSWG docs set.
Perhaps I'm still not understanding what you're getting at.
> 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.
I'm trying to avoid requiring people to use any particular license. I'm
trying to leave the license field as open as possible, in fact, with the
only requirements being that whatever license is chosen, it must allow
for the document to be freely reformattable and redistributable. Any
other restrictions/allowances the author wants to place on it are
his/her business.
I also don't want to express a bias toward any particular license. I
don't think it would be useful to alienate people who want to contribute
but who don't care for our 'preferred' license. So long as a license
allows for the two characteristics listed above, I think it's a valid
license for inclusion.
As I said before, however, the two characteristics are a bare minimum
for inclusion. If people want to release docs as wholly "public
domain", that's cool. If people want to release docs that others are
free to modify, that's cool, too. At the very least, however,
documentation in the OSWG repository should have the two characteristics
I listed.
In my (current) opinion :) If you think I'm way off-base here, say so.
- deb
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
