[OSGeo-Edu] Free and open source your documentation efforts

[watry at steam.coaps.fsu.edu]

Quoting Matthew Perry <perrygeo at gmail.com>:

I would consider the following Quoted License because it once again 
states you can not repackage and sell the course material, but it says 
the same thing as the current license.

"
GNU Free Documentation License
Version 1.2, November 2002


The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other
functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to
assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it,
with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially.

Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way
to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible
for modifications made by others.

This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative
works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. YOU 
CAN NOT SELL IT

It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft
license designed for free software.

We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free
software, because free software needs free documentation: a free
program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the
software does.  But this License is not limited to software manuals;
it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or
whether it is published as a printed book.  We recommend this License
principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.
"
> Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>> watry at steam.coaps.fsu.edu wrote:
>> > Quoting Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com>:
>> > The following meets that criteria - Right??
>> ...
>> > Noncommercial. The user may not use this work for commercial purposes.
>>
>> No, I don't think so.  If this condition was applied to a software license
>> it would make the license not fit the free software definition (ie. it would
>> not be OSI certifiable).
>
> On 10/8/06, watry at steam.coaps.fsu.edu <watry at steam.coaps.fsu.edu> wrote:
>> So the bottom line is unless we allow the tutorials to be repackaged
>> and sold for commercial gain, it is not considered open source?
>
>
> The fundamental question is "Can a license which prevents the use of
> materials in a proprietary product be considered open source?".
>
> I'm no lawyer but isn't that exactly what the GPL (an OSI approved
> license) does for software? According to Richard Stallman:
>
> """
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Stallman [mailto:rms at gnu.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 8:41 PM
>
> You will often hear people say that the GPL does not allow use of the
> code in commercial software.  This is a subtle confusion.
>
> The GPL does not make any distinction between commercial and
> noncommercial software development.  It allows businesses to do all
> the same things that individuals and schools are allowed to do.
>
> However, the GPL does forbid use of the code in *proprietary*
> (non-free) software.  The GPL does not allow adding any additional
> restrictions to any program that includes the code.  So any program
> that incorporates the GPL-covered code, whether it be commercial,
> academic, or avocational, must be released as free software.
> """
>
> There is the subtle distinction between "commerical" and "proprietary"
> to consider. But if we apply the same logic to documentation, a
> gpl-like license would require that any product which incorporates
> these docs be released as "free documentation"?
>
> Any thoughts?
> -- 
> Matthew T. Perry
> GIS Analyst / Software Engineer
> National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS)
> work: perry at nceas.ucsb.edu
> web: http://www.perrygeo.net
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------