Subject: Re: OSL 2.1 for textbooks
From: Bruce Perens <>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:08:39 -0700

I think all 15 books in my series with Prentice Hall are under the Open
Publication license. It seems to have worked well for us so far. I have
not gone to Creative Commons licensing mostly because the series has
Open Source as its theme and I don't want people to be confused that
Creative Commons licenses are all Open Source. A few of them are.

I think the worst part of the GNU FDL is the anti-DRM provision. This
although I disapprove of DRM as much as anyone. The license provision is
so vague that putting a GNU FDL licensed file on a system with login
security could violate it.



Wilson, Andrew wrote:

>Another license specifically intended for documents is the Open
>Publication License:
>  Although itself
>appears to be
>defunct, their license should at least give you food for thought.