[Lizenzen] OpenContent License suitable for WOS?
Sat, 4 Sep 1999 18:58:59 +2
the WOS-Site and a CD with the proceedings needs a license. Various
IP-sensitive journalists put the texts under the OPL, others under he
GPL. On freepatents.org I discovered yet another one, the Free
Document Dissemination Licence
For starters, I've taken a look at the OPL and intersperced it with
some questions. Somehow I have the feeling that even though all this
legalese might be necessary it's relevance for actual use in court is
rather hypothetical, and the WOS license to be is more of a political
looking forward to your ideas on this.
OpenContent License (OPL)
Version 1.0, July 14, 1998.
This document outlines the principles underlying the OpenContent (OC)
movement and may be redistributed provided it remains unaltered. For
legal purposes, this document is the license under which OpenContent
is made available for use.
The original version of this document may be found at
Terms and Conditions for Copying, Distributing, and Modifying
Items other than copying, distributing, and modifying the Content with
which this license was distributed (such as using, etc.) are outside
the scope of this license.
## three lines up it says: "license under which OpenContent is made
## available for use." What is meant by forms of use other than
## copying, distributing, and modifying? Reading??
1. You may copy and distribute exact replicas of the OpenContent (OC)
as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
## is the difference in design between anglo-american copyright and
## continental-european author's right (Urheberrecht) from which
## copyrights (Verwertungsrechte) are only derived rights, relevant
and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to
this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
recipients of the OC a copy of this License along with the OC. You may
at your option charge a fee for the media and/or handling involved in
creating a unique copy of the OC for use offline, you may at your
option offer instructional support for the OC in exchange for a fee,
## "instructional support" for texts, images, sound? What might that
## mean? Usage of them in classroom is granted by fair use, anyway.
or you may at your option offer warranty in exchange for a fee.
## "no warranty" is a central element in all free licences. I can see
## a company building their business on a certain software, it
## failing, them going bancrupt, and them wanting to sue somebody. But
## what could it mean with respect to texts, images, sound? A
## consultancy firm bases a recommendation to its client on the OC @
## WOS, they warrant the quality of their recommendation, something
## goes wrong, client sues consultant, consultant sues copyright
## holder of OC?? Did something like that ever happen where content -
## whether free or not - was published with a disclaimer of warranty??
You may not charge a fee for the OC itself. You may not charge a fee
for the sole service of providing access to and/or use of the OC via a
network (e.g. the Internet), whether it be via the world wide web,
FTP, or any other method.
## this excludes incorporating the content in for-pay online
## databases, but if the same database is backed onto a CD it's OK to
## charge? It also prohibits AOL from claiming that their customer's
## content is theirs to sell. Maybe picky, but what about the telco
## and the ISP charging a fee for providing access to the content?
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the OpenContent or any
portion of it, thus forming works based on the Content, and distribute
such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above,
provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
## so derived works have to be published under OPL as well, the same
## viral bit as with the GPL?
a) You must cause the modified content to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed it, the exact nature and content of the
changes, and the date of any change.
## "stating the exact nature and content of the changes" that's easily
## said, but how is it done? By keeping the complete original? Then
## collective documents that actually emerge over time, eg. an FAQ
## under the OPL would have more legacy volume than actual conent. A
## CVS for text production that keeps track of the complete history of
## changes, does that make sense? How about collective and ongoing
## production of music or images?
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the OC or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License, unless otherwise permitted under
applicable Fair Use law.
## "derived from any part thereof" -- Quoting is covered by Fair Use,
## so a review of an OC doesn't have to be under OPL. What is then the
## largest unit covered by Fair Use and the smallest unit protected by
## this OPL clause? A sentence, three sentences, an idea? How about
## music or video?
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the OC, and
can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the OC, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Exceptions are made to this requirement to release modified works free
of charge under this license only in compliance with Fair Use law
## hm, don't get it. Say, we do a collection of papers on OSS. I write
## two texts, one derived work under OPL, and one on the same topic
## but not derived that I can sell to a magazine under their
## copyright, and the book of collected papers as a whole and each
## part has to be under OPL??
3. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to copy,
distribute or modify the OC. These actions are prohibited by law if
you do not accept this License. Therefore, by distributing or
translating the OC, or by deriving works herefrom, you indicate your
acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions
for copying, distributing or translating the OC.
4. BECAUSE THE OPENCONTENT (OC) IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS
NO WARRANTY FOR THE OC, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.
EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR
OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE OC "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK OF USE OF THE OC IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE OC
PROVE FAULTY, INACCURATE, OR OTHERWISE UNACCEPTABLE YOU ASSUME THE
COST OF ALL NECESSARY REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
5. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW
## I guess, this means you cannot commit libel and get away with it by
## doing it under the OPL
OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY
WHO MAY MIRROR AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE OC AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL
OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE
THE OC, EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
## Again, what kind of damages could one imagine arrising from usage
## of texts, images, sound?
Wizards of OS: http://www.mikro.org/wos
Lizenzen freier Software. unsubscribe mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org