Subject: RE: OSL 2.1 for textbooks
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:34:36 -0700

I use the OSL or AFL (version 2.1) for most of my own publications. I
intended those licenses to be suitable for documents, textbooks and the
like. See http://rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm. 

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242  ●  fax: 707-485-1243
Author of “Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom 
               and Intellectual Property Law” (Prentice Hall 2004)
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wilson, Andrew [mailto:andrew.wilson@intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 3:50 PM
> To: Sanjoy Mahajan; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: RE: OSL 2.1 for textbooks
> 
> 
> Sanjoy Mahajan wrote:
> 
> > I've been looking for freebook license for my physics textbook that
> will
> > be published by a regular publisher.  An old draft is at
> > <http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sanjoy/book/>.  I had planned to
> use
> > the GNU FDL, but the cogent debian-legal statement at
> > <http://people.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml>
> > convinced me to rethink, especially the objections to invariant
> sections
> > and front- and back-cover texts -- although I can see why the FSF put
> in
> > those features.  Document licensing is complex.
> 
> Indeed it is, and I'm not sure you're looking in the right place if
> you're contemplating using the OSL for your textbook.  Have you
> evaluated the Creative Commons license?
> http://creativecommons.org/license/
> 
> Another license specifically intended for documents is the Open
> Publication License:
> http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/  Although opencontent.org itself
> appears to be
> defunct, their license should at least give you food for thought.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Andy Wilson
> Intel Open Source Technology Center