[OSGeo-Edu] Re: Input please

[Gary Watry]

This is close to what I want.(it seems to force it to stay free and not 
proprietary)
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.

I don't want this
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 /_proprietary licenses_/, 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.

This may work


  The GNU General Public License (GPL)


Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Gary Watry wrote:
>> Could I get feedback about changing to GNU License? Does that meet 
>> the Open source criteria?
>
> Gary,
>
> I haven't actually reviewed the FDL myself.  Being from the FSF I would
> assume it does meet the criteria but I have also heard that it is quite
> complicated so I have avoided digging through it in detail.
>
> OK, having spouted off, I feel I owe you a bit of research.  I've done
> a few searches, and found the following critiques of the GNU FDL -
> primarily from the Debian folks.
>
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00169.html
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/04/msg00246.html
>   http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
>
> The gist of these arguments include:
>  o The license is complicated in lots of ways.
>  o It is hard to share material between documents due to "attachment
>    to invariant sections".
>  o The invariant sections make documents non-free.
>
> I'm not sure if all these arguments are current to the latest version
> of the FDL or not.
>
> In short, I'm hesitant to encourage use of the FDL though in my opinions
> it does maintain the required freedoms we desire for the bulk of the
> document.
>
> Best regards,

-- 
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: watry at coaps.fsu.edu



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/edu_discuss/attachments/20061010/74249bd0/attachment.html