On Thu, 1 May 2003, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote: > Is the Open Publication License compatible with the GNU GPL?
Not remotely. > The Open Publication License (http://opencontent.org/openpub/) > v1.0 says: > > | Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the > | citation of the original publisher and author. This is not a problem. > | The publisher > | and author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the > | book. On all outer surfaces of the book the original > | publisher's name shall be as large as the title of the work and > | cited as possessive with respect to the title. This would likely not be accepted for software. There's currently some debate (heh) on whether documentation can be considered free with this kind of restriction and whether there is a category of things that are not software which Debian should distribute even if they're not free. My personal opinion is that this clause makes any work released under this license non-free, and Debian shouldn't distribute it. In any case, a work which derives from both an open publication licensed work and a GPLed work cannot be distributed by anyone. > | IV. REQUIREMENTS ON MODIFIED WORKS > | 4. The location of the original unmodified document must be identified. This is hard to understand, and may be non-free also. If I recieve a copy and make changes, must I point to my upstream (unmodified-by-me) or to her upstream (unmodified-by-her), or to some "original author" whose work may have been so changed as to be irrelevant by now? If I only need to point to the location I recieved the work, and can do so in the changelog or copyright statement rather than in the display of the work, this is probably free. > So I wish the Debian WWW Pages to be dual-licensed under the Open > Publication License and the GNU GPL. I think this is a very good suggestion. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
