Hi,
During my ongoing search of free licenses in all kinds of documentation, I've come across a PostNuke Guide at http://www.drewvogel.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=...
On the first page is stated: ------------------------------------ "LICENSE & COPYRIGHT FOR THIS GUIDE The Official PostNuke Installation and Getting started Guide was written by Drew Vogel. Copyright 2002 by Drzew Vogel. All rights reserved.
You may not distribute, modify, or translate this Guide without prior consent of Drew Vogel (drew@drewvogel.com). The only approved use is review,comment, and personal use.
This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, Draf v.1.0, 5 Juni 1999 or later (the latest version is available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub ).
Distribution and/or sale of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.
Distribution and/or sale of the work or derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form or printed form is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder." ----------------------------------------------------------------
Appearantly, this guide is dual licensed with a traditional license and the OPL with options A and B. So the first statements do not contradict the terms of the OPL with options. Correct?
But when you compare these options with options A and B of the OPL, you see that they are changed:
"Distribution" ---> "Distribution AND/OR SALE" (2X)
"any standard (paper) book form" ---> "any standard (paper) book form OR PRINTED FORM"
Are such changes allowed? Of course, a copyright holder chooses whatever he wishes, but if he chooses OPL+options, can he then change the options to more restrictive ones?
Wouter Vanden Hove
Wouter Vanden Hove Wouter.Vanden.Hove@pandora.be wrote:
Appearantly, this guide is dual licensed with a traditional license and the OPL with options A and B. So the first statements do not contradict the terms of the OPL with options. Correct?
The options named are *more* restrictive than the OPL ones. The OPL forbids this in its appendix. Therefore, the document is not licensed under the OPL and reverts to "All Rights Reserved", so the only licence applicable is the author's own sketchy terms above the OPL text. Ouch.
I am not a lawyer, but I would definitely not let my company touch that document without getting one to check.
For your information : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html ...
Open Publication License, Version 1.0. This license can be used as a free documentation license. It is a copyleft free documentation license provided the copyright holder does not exercise any of the "LICENSE OPTIONS" listed in Section VI of the license. But if either of the options is invoked, the license becomes non-free.
This creates a practical pitfall in using or recommending this license: if you recommend ``Use the Open Publication License, Version 1.0 but don't enable the options'', it would be easy for the second half of that recommendation to get forgotten; someone might use the license with the options, making a manual non-free, and yet think he is following your advice.
Likewise, if you use this license without either of the options to make your manual free, someone else might decide to imitate you, then change his mind about the options thinking that that is just a detail; the result would be that his manual is non-free.
Thus, while manuals published under this license do qualify as free documentation if neither license option was used, it is better to use the GNU Free Documentation License and avoid the risk of leading someone else astray.
Please note that this license is not the same as the Open Content License. These two licenses are frequently confused, as the Open Content License is often referred to as the "OPL". For clarity, it is better not to use the abbreviation ``OPL'' for either license. It is worth spelling their names in full to make sure people understand what you say.
On 24 Jul 2002, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
Hi,
During my ongoing search of free licenses in all kinds of documentation, I've come across a PostNuke Guide at http://www.drewvogel.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=...
On the first page is stated:
"LICENSE & COPYRIGHT FOR THIS GUIDE The Official PostNuke Installation and Getting started Guide was written by Drew Vogel. Copyright 2002 by Drzew Vogel. All rights reserved.
You may not distribute, modify, or translate this Guide without prior consent of Drew Vogel (drew@drewvogel.com). The only approved use is review,comment, and personal use.
This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, Draf v.1.0, 5 Juni 1999 or later (the latest version is available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub ).
Distribution and/or sale of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.
Distribution and/or sale of the work or derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form or printed form is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder."
Appearantly, this guide is dual licensed with a traditional license and the OPL with options A and B. So the first statements do not contradict the terms of the OPL with options. Correct?
But when you compare these options with options A and B of the OPL, you see that they are changed:
"Distribution" ---> "Distribution AND/OR SALE" (2X)
"any standard (paper) book form" ---> "any standard (paper) book form OR PRINTED FORM"
Are such changes allowed? Of course, a copyright holder chooses whatever he wishes, but if he chooses OPL+options, can he then change the options to more restrictive ones?
Wouter Vanden Hove
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mailman.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion