Deb,
My response is brief, so I'll just put it here at the top.
By verbatim I just meant no changes to contents.
I think these two requirements are acceptable minimal requirements. You
aren't off base. You've set down something similar to the Debian Open
Source guidelines, which set a bare minimum for inclusion in the Debian
distribution and have become the official definition of Open Source.
I agree with you on your points below. If I wrote a paper I wouldn't
want modified versions (this is what I mean by "derivative works") to be
redistributed. I still think its important for their to be a bias
towards allowing distribution of modifications in the case of
documentation, but I don't think that requirement should bar people from
contributing that would otherwise.
It is my opinion that its not a good idea to support documentation
projects that do not allow redistribution of modified versions, but, as
I said above, this doesn't have to be a requirement.
-john.
Deb Richardson wrote:
>
> > 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 out-of-date material from being removed, the work being incorporated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]
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Blair author/software engineer/linux
specialist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "it's easier to fix UNIX than to use
Windows"
