From lizenzen@mikrolisten.de Wed Mar 15 16:33:52 2000 From: lizenzen@mikrolisten.de (Volker Grassmuck) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:33:52 +0200 Subject: [Lizenzen] GNU Free Documentation License Message-ID: <200003151727.SAA16685@suncom.rz.hu-berlin.de> Liebe SubskribientInnen der Lizenzen-Liste, ist leider etwas still geworden hier. Aus gegebenem Anlasz moechte ich die hier versammelten Interessen auf die Frage der Lizenz richten, unter der die WOS-CD (rsn ;) und die Site stehen sollen. Gerade passend dazu ist die Ver. 1.1 der GNU Free Documentation License erschienen. Ich find sie generell prima, hab aber einige Fragen. Sie bezieht sich nur auf "textual works", die wos-CD enhaelt aber auch RealVideos (und wohl ein QuickTime). "Documentation" und "works for instruction or reference" paszt dagegen wieder. Bei den Videos duerfte es sich um "opaque" Formate handeln, obwohl die Spezifikationen ja wohl "available to the general public" sind. Was waere eine "completely transparent copy" eines Videos? Die Vorschriften f=FCr die Cover-Texts find ich arg b=FCrokratisch und sp=E4testens bei den 5 rsp. 25 W=F6rtern, die man bei abgeleiteten Werken hinzuf=FCgen darf, wird's echt fliegenbeinz=E4hlerisch. Wir halsen uns damit ne Menge Sachen auf (Invariant Sections List, History, Formate) und fraglich bleibt eh, ob die Modifikationsbedingungen bei den Koferenzbeitraegen, um die's hier geht, irgendeinen Sinn machen. Als Geste koennte ich mir schon vorstellen, die GFDL zu nehmen. Aber mich wuerden trotzdem erstmal die Ansichten der hier Versammelten interessieren. Anbei ein Austausch auf wos@mikrolisten zur GFDL und eine aeltere Anfrage zur OPL. beste Gruesze Volker ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- To: wos@mikrolisten.de Subject: Re: [WOS] GNU Free Documentation License From: mfvm@gmx.de (Michael Fischer v. Mollard) Date: 14 Mar 2000 01:38:32 +0100 Reply-to: wos@mikrolisten.de Florian Cramer writes: > Das GNU-Projekt hat soeben eine neue Copyleft-Lizenz f=B3r > Buchpublikationen ver=F7ffentlicht: > Danke. H=F5tte ich fast verpasst... > Es handelt sich dabei um eine Variante der GPL, die auf die > Spezifika von Drucksachen zugeschnitten ist. Die implizite > Unterscheidung von ausf=B3hrbarem Softwarecode und Papier-zentrischem > und nat=B3rlichsprachigen Schriftcode noch angemessen ist finde ich > allerdings fragw=B3rdig. Doch, diese Unterscheidung ist noch angemessen. Nat=B3rlich ist es einer der wesentlichen Vorteile von freier Software, dass man den Quelltext (und der ist ja auch f=B3r Menschen geschrieben) in die H=F5nde bekommt, um ihn zu lesen und daraus zu lernen, aber die Notwendigkeit, das sich der Code zu einem sinnvollen Programm =B3bersetzen lassen muss, schr=F5nkt die -nderungen doch sehr ein. Bei einem Buch kann man in deutlich mehr Richtungen =F5ndern, und deshalb enth=F5lt die GFDL das Konzept von 'invarianten Abschnitten', die nicht ge=F5ndert werden d=B3rfen (es geht da explizit um nicht technische Abschnitte). Nehmen wir als Beispiel ein imagin=F5res Buch =B3ber den Emacs, das einige Kapitel =B3ber die Schlechtigkeit kommerzieller Programmentwicklung enthielte. St=B3nde das Buch unter GPL, k=F7nnte man diese Kapitel entfernen und das Buch dann verteilen. St=B3nde es unter der GFDL und die entsprechenden Abschnitte w=F5ren als 'invariant sections' deklariert, ginge das nicht. Das schr=F5nkt zwar die Freiheit des Benutzers ein, d=B3rfte aber im Sinne des Autors sein. Bei technischer Beschreibung geht soetwas unter der GFDL selbstverst=F5ndlich nicht, aber das w=F5re ja auch unsinnig. Vorteil von der GPL w=F5re allerdings, dass man einfacher den Source bestimmen kann und kein langes geeiere mit transparenten und opaquen Kopien machen m=B3sste, auch wenn der Gedanke dahinter richtig und wichtig ist. -- MfG MFvM Wizards of OS Mailinglist. To unsubscribe mailto:majordomo@mikrolisten.de To: lizenzen@mikrolisten.de, wos@mikrolisten.de Subject: OpenContent License suitable for WOS? Date sent: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 18:58:06 +2 Dear all, 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 statement. looking forward to your ideas on this. best Volker 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 http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml LICENSE 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 ## here? 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 where applicable. ## 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. NO WARRANTY 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? =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D= -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- home http://waste.informatik.hu-berlin.de/Grassmuck/ mikro http://www.mikro.org Wizards of OS http://www.mikro.org/wos =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D= -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- Lizenzen freier Software. unsubscribe mailto:majordomo@mikrolisten.de