<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<span nd="1" name="intelliTxt" id="intelliTxt">This is close to what I
want.(it seems to force it to stay free and not proprietary)<br>
The GNU Free Documentation License, described in this article, applies
to documents the same requirements of reciprocity applied by the GNU
General Public License to software. That is to say, it requires that
derivative works (modified versions of the original work, or works
otherwise based on the original work) be licensed only under the GNU
FDL. This is the so-called "viral" effect of the GNU system of
licenses: works licensed under a GNU license, works derived from those
works, works derived in turn from such derivative works, and on and on,
can only be licensed under the GNU license under which the original
work itself was licensed.</span> <br>
<br>
I don't want this<span nd="1" name="intelliTxt" id="intelliTxt"><br>
By contrast, the Open Publication License and the Open Gaming License,
which will be discussed in the next two articles, follow the path of
academic licenses such as the BSD and MIT licenses, at least in some
variations, permit derivative works to be distributed under other
licenses, including <i><u>proprietary licenses</u></i>, so long as
certain conditions are complied with, mostly relating to providing
notice of the name and publisher and the license applicable to the
original work.</span><br>
<br>
This may work<br>
<h1>The GNU General Public License (GPL)</h1>
<br>
Frank Warmerdam wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid452BB125.9060809@pobox.com" type="cite">Gary Watry
wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Could I get feedback about changing to GNU
License? Does that meet the Open source criteria?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Gary,
<br>
<br>
I haven't actually reviewed the FDL myself. Being from the FSF I would
<br>
assume it does meet the criteria but I have also heard that it is quite
<br>
complicated so I have avoided digging through it in detail.
<br>
<br>
OK, having spouted off, I feel I owe you a bit of research. I've done
<br>
a few searches, and found the following critiques of the GNU FDL -
<br>
primarily from the Debian folks.
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00169.html">http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00169.html</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/04/msg00246.html">http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/04/msg00246.html</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html">http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html</a>
<br>
<br>
The gist of these arguments include:
<br>
o The license is complicated in lots of ways.
<br>
o It is hard to share material between documents due to "attachment
<br>
to invariant sections".
<br>
o The invariant sections make documents non-free.
<br>
<br>
I'm not sure if all these arguments are current to the latest version
<br>
of the FDL or not.
<br>
<br>
In short, I'm hesitant to encourage use of the FDL though in my
opinions
<br>
it does maintain the required freedoms we desire for the bulk of the
<br>
document.
<br>
<br>
Best regards,
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Gary L. Watry
GIS Coordinator
Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies
FSU / COAPS
Johnson Building, RM 215
2035 East Paul Dirac Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2840
Phone (850) 645-7457
E-Mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:watry@coaps.fsu.edu">watry@coaps.fsu.edu</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>