Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
> > This led me to speculate on someone wanting to do the reverse, license
> > a document as open for online use but reserving the right to be paid for
> > print publication. I don't think I'd do this, but I do think authors
> > should be able to do it without being excluded from open doc projects.
>
> Um, I have to disagree - one of the things that makes the LDP valuable is
> the fact that it is printable. If you wanted to work on the GNOME project,
> but not allow your software to be included in salable distributions
> without your permission they wouldn't accept the software. The same reasoning
> went into the LDP. I can agree with a license that doesn't allow for
> derivative works, but not with one that restricts sale of works.
I don't usually do this, but "me, too". OPL + option B restricts the
right to produce hardcopy versions of whatever is licensed under it.
This is one of the "complications" I alluded to in an earlier post. I
still hold that "freely reformattable and freely distributable" should
be the baseline of freedoms for docs allowable in the OSWG documentation
set, and these freedoms allow publishers to pick up, publish, and sell
that content. This is similar to Linux itself, for example, which
anyone can pick up, package, and sell.
Restriction of print publication rights falls on the "less free" side of
the baseline freedoms I'm hoping we can establish.
- deb
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
