[Lizenzen] GNU Free Documentation License
Volker Grassmuck
lizenzen@mikrolisten.de
Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:33:52 +0200
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. <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html>
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 <paragram@gmx.net> writes:
> Das GNU-Projekt hat soeben eine neue Copyleft-Lizenz f=B3r
> Buchpublikationen ver=F7ffentlicht:
> <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html>
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
<http://pauillac.inriafr/~lang/licence/v1/fddl.html>
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