Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit: > Given that, unlike what is typical of software, access to the underlying > ideas in a document are as accessible as the expression and that > copyright infringement is not the same as plagiarism, does the use > of licenses to distribute text cut against the goals of open source > more than it supports it? Compare, for example, the use of a book, > newspaper, or magazine article (as a copyrighted work) with software. > Are we promoting the idea that all text should be licensed? Isn't this > the regretable trend that has captured all software? When the ideas > are freely accessible doesn't that reduce (albeit, not eliminate) > the benefit of using an open source license?
Well, *documentation* (which is what Larry was talking about) should IMHO be licensed under an OS license, so that it can be changed in synchrony with changes to the software being documented (whether the software is OS or not). Certain licenses like Creative Commons and the OSL/AFL are more suitable than others; in particular, the GPL is bad for books or other objects distributed primarily as dead trees. If I send you a xerox copy of a magazine article licensed under the GPL, I am also obligated to make the modifiable form of that article available for three years, which is a pain in the ass. I think that as to written works which are not code and don't accompany code, a case-by-case determination has to be made. A statement of opinion should probably get a Creative Commons no-changes license, which is not open source; I don't want you hacking an article of mine defending X to make it an attack on X or even a defense of Y, even if you are obliged to take my name off it. -- I don't know half of you half as well John Cowan as I should like, and I like less than half [EMAIL PROTECTED] of you half as well as you deserve. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Bilbo http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
