[ZDP] ZAG license [was: Re: Editing]

[Will Dennis]

Hello all,

Michel Pelletier wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Kamon Ayeva wrote
> 
>> 
>> I hope the book will eventually be published. The GNU license seems good but
>> does publishers generally like it ?
> 
> 
> I would guess not, and I can't guarantee my employers will
> like it either.  I'm for the OPL, it's short and simple, and doesn't try
> to make a political statement.  The GFDL is long and complex; possibly
> hard for non-english speakers to understand.  Does it have any of the
> "viral" nature that the GPL is generally considered to have?
> 
> -Michel
> 
The last thing I'd like to see is a religious war over licenses here. 
But, I think the GFDL is more well thought-out than the Opencontent OPL, 
and I don't see where the political statement is in it. As far as long, 
it contains 11 sections to The OPL's  6, so the OPL *is* shorter, but I 
don't think that makes the GFDL "long" (check out an Akamai contract if 
you want to see long!)  Complex is also in the eye of the beholder; I 
believe that the complexity of the GFDL lies in its provisions to make 
the license appealing to commercial publishers while protecting the 
freedom of the work, especially in Sections 3 and 4.

As far as non-English speakers are concerned, the GFDL has been 
translated into many foreign languages -  see:

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html#translationsGFDL

As far as "viral nature": Derivative works must be as free as the 
precedent works. From the GFDL:

"This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works 
of the document must themselves be free in the same sense.  It 
complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license 
designed for free software."

But, combining the GFDL-covered document with other non-GFDL docs DOES 
NOT "infect" the other works. From Section 7 of the GFDL:

"A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate 
and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or 
distribution medium, does not as a whole count as a Modified Version of 
the Document, provided no compilation copyright is claimed for the 
compilation.  Such a compilation is called an "aggregate", and this 
License does not apply to the other self-contained works thus compiled 
with the Document, on account of their being thus compiled, if they are 
not themselves derivative works of the Document."

This is similar to the OPL, which states:

"Mere aggregation of Open Publication works or a portion of an Open 
Publication work with other works or programs on the same media shall 
not cause this license to apply to those other works. The aggregate work 
shall contain a notice specifying the inclusion of the Open Publication 
material and appropriate copyright notice."

As I said, I do not wish to start a "I love GPL/I hate GPL"-type of 
argument; I am merely interested that the license applied to the ZAG not 
only preserves rights of the copyright holders, but also the "freedom to 
copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either 
commercially or noncommercially."  To my reading of it, the OPL does not 
guarantee this important right.

Thanks,

Will Dennis