
	Where results make sense

Topic: OpenContent License

Related Topics

Vitex

Gobiidae

Tory Action

ENEG

Member of the European Parliament

Thioesters

John Hunt

Cybergrind

Nicky Wire

Seoul

Michael II

Turnus

Merenrap

332 BC

	Open content - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Content can be either in the public domain or under a license like the Creative Commons License.
		It is possible that the first documented case of Open Content was with the Royal Society, where they aspired toward information sharing across the globe as a public enterprise.
		The main difference between licenses is the definition of freedom; some licenses attempt to maximize the freedom of all potential recipients in the future while others maximize the freedom of the initial recipient.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Open_content (572 words)

	OpenContent - Home
		This document outlines the principles underlying the OpenContent (OC) movement and may be redistributed provided it remains unaltered.
		For legal purposes, this document is the license under which OpenContent is made available for use.
		You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it.
	www.opencontent.org /opl.shtml (612 words)

	Re: Updating the OpenContent license
		License proliferation is a big problem for two reasons: 1) Most programmers, and authors, are not sholars in copyright law.
		It is best to have a small set of licenses -- perhaps two to four -- whose ramifications are well understood by at least a significant minority of the community at large.
		Moreover, license proliferation promotes an "every man for himself" attitude which is, I think, contrary to the spirit of sharing and community-building which I perceive to be one of the enterprises of the Free Software and Open Content communities.
	lists.debian.org /debian-legal/2000/01/msg00088.html (1543 words)

	CzrPL - The CZR Public License (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-23)
		The CZR Public License (CzrPL) is adapted from the GNU General Public License and the OpenContent License, and has generally the same aims.
		The main difference between this license and the GNU GPL is that this license is designed to apply to content such as music, poetry, photography, etc., rather than to software.
		This was also the aim of the OpenContent License but, unfortunately for my purposes, it added several anti-commercial measures which I thought weren't in the spirit of the GNU GPL and, also, were not in my interests.
	rtnl.org.uk /czrpl (631 words)

	discuss@en.tldp.org (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-23)
		Those were: o OpenContent License 1.0 (bizarrely termed "OPL" on account of its original name: "OpenContent Principles and License") -- a 1998 licence requiring attribution and permitting derivates but forbidding commercial distribution.
		o Open Publication License 1.0 (bizarrely _not_ termed the "OPL") -- a newer licence, permitting commercial usage, that is either forkable or not depending on whether the copyright holder invokes option A or B in clause 6.
		OpenContent License 1.0 ("OPL") and the other variant of Open Publication License 1.0 would be considered proprietary.
	lists.tldp.org /index.cgi?1:mss:6965:200404:pkdleajpekbbaookkgbd (289 words)

	Meatball Wiki: OpenPublicationLicense (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-23)
		OpenContent's only excuse for existing is to "facilitate the prolific creation of freely available, high-quality, well-maintained Content." This Content can then be used in an infinity of ways, restricted only by the imagination of the user.
		OpenContent is freely available for modification, use, and redistribution under a license similar to those used by the Open Source / Free Software community.
		In plain English, the license relieves the author of any liability or implication of warranty, grants others permission to use the Content in whole or in part, and insures that the original author will be properly credited when Content is used.
	usemod.com /cgi-bin/mb.pl?OpenPublicationLicense (299 words)

	Re: New OPL Draft (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-23)
		One reason for using the same license is that it is easier to understand just one license (even with options) than it is to understand a few (or several) different licenses.
		If they were both under the same license (even though they used different options) it might be easier to proceed.
		In the other case (different licenses) the author might not say "yes" since he would need to go through the arduous task of reading over the proposed license that he has never seen before.
	www.ecst.csuchico.edu /LDP/archives/ldp-discuss/msg01231.html (484 words)

	LIFE Open Content - Licenses
		As our intention is to help practitioners to get open content on the ground and running, our primary interest lies in identifying those licenses used in the real world which have a proven track-record, not in crafting yet another special license and thereby adding to the confusion.
		Firstly, if the license does not match the requirements of prospective content authors, they may simply choose not to contribute their valuable existing or future content - which they otherwise may have done, given the right license.
		Secondly, it is extremly difficult to subsequently change a license once a significant amount of work has been created under a certain license.
	www.life-open-content.org /Licenses/licenses.html (556 words)

	ITOL: Copyright (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-23)
		This license requires that the copyright holders and creators of these materials - The Sheffield College, on behalf of SYFEC - will be properly and fully credited when the material is used.
		The license also grants others permission to modify and redistribute the materials provided that they clearly mark what changes have been made, when they were made, and who made them.
		Under the terms of this license, The Sheffield College and SYFEC are relieved of any liability or implication of warranty for the materials.
	www.sheffcol.ac.uk /itol/copyright.html (180 words)

	[No title]
		These licensing conditions supersede any other conditions on licensing or distribution that may be found in the files or documents distributed with this software package.
		For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
		Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
	afni.nimh.nih.gov /pub/dist/README.copyright (2967 words)

	Re: Updating the OpenContent license
		The Open Publication License is a reasonable starting point for a license, but the last version I saw had a serious (though not fatal) problem: it has two optional clauses, and if either of these options is invoked, then the license becomes non-free.
		However, this License can be used for any textual work, regardless of its subject matter, and regardless of whether it is released in the form of a printed book.
		In such a compilation, this License does not apply to the other self-contained works thus compiled with the Manual, on account of their being thus compiled, if they are not themselves derivative works of the Manual.
	www.ibiblio.org /pub/electronic-publications/linux-doc-project/mail_archives/ldp-discuss/msg01087.html (2462 words)

	Notice of Copyright For This Document: Potto Project License
		Therefore, by distributing or translating these materials, or by deriving works here from, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or translating these materials.
		Because these materials are licensed free of charge, there is no warranty for the manuscript, to the extent permitted by applicable law.
		Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties provide these manuscripts ``AS IS'' without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
	www.potto.org /copyRight/node1.html (597 words)

	SoilScience Courseware OpenContent License
		This OpenContent license applies to the text, animations, images, videos, and case studies developed by PrecisionAg@NCState to which a notice of this license has been appended.
		Publications may be reproduced and distributed in whole or in part, in any medium physical or electronic, provided that the terms of this license are adhered to, and that this license or an incorporation of it by reference (with any options elected by the author(s) and/or publisher) is displayed in the reproduction.
		If any part of this license is found to be unenforceable in any jurisdiction, the remaining portions of the license remain in force.
	courses.soil.ncsu.edu /openc_license (1355 words)

	SEUL/edu Documentation Standards (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-23)
		A full copy of this license is included in Appendix D. Dedication Many people think of technology as a new way of distancing ourselves from people and reality.
		To keep articles short it is recommended that articles do not include the full copyright license, however, it is important to include the URL to the full copyright license.
		LICENSE Terms and Conditions for Copying, Distributing, and Modifying Items other than copying, distributing, and modifying the Content with which this license was distributed (such as using, etc.) are outside the scope of this license.
	www.seul.org /edu/docs/writer/txt/DocStandards.txt (4150 words)

	Creative Commons Welcomes David Wiley as Educational Use License Project Lead \| Creative Commons
		The OpenContent Project launched in 1998, offering the first license designed specifically to support the free and open sharing of content.
		Copies of the OpenContent License and Open Publication License will continue to be available from the OpenContent website, http://opencontent.org/, for archival purposes, but newcomers to the site will be encouraged to visit Creative Commons, http://creativecommons.org/, to utilize the licenses available on their site.
		Neither of the OpenContent licenses will be developed further in the future.
	creativecommons.org /press-releases/entry/3733 (498 words)

	[No title]
		Andrius, Here's my opinion on the matter: The OpenContent license structurally is directly opposite the most common software practice of copyrighting and restricting access to all software code.
		This is > from the OpenContent website, http://www.opencontent.org/ > > > > OpenContent is freely available for modification, use, and redistribution under a > > license similar to those used by the Open Source / Free Software community.
		In > > plain English, the license relieves the author of any liability or implication of > > warranty, grants others permission to use the Content in whole or in part, and > > insures that the original author will be properly credited when Content is used.
	www.ms.lt /en/archive/thinkingpowerfully/426 (928 words)

	Linux Gazette : Open Publication License
		Note that the author, being the copyright holder, is not bound by the license, and is free to republish the article or allow it to be republished under any license desired.
		Open Publication works are licensed and provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose or a warranty of non-infringement.
		These options are considered part of the license instance and must be included with the license (or its incorporation by reference) in derived works.
	linuxgazette.net /copying.html (1069 words)

	ThinkCycle SoapBox (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-23)
		An author could choose CC terms to roughly approximate the OpenContent license, but substantial differences remain.
		For example, the CC license requires some warranty by the author of his/her right to license the material.
		OpenContent disclaims some warranties that CC requires, for example.
	www.thinkcycle.org /soapbox/show-rant?rant_id=316 (150 words)

	Freeware Licensing
		OPENCONTENT aims to be the equivalent for content of the GPL for software.
		Apple Public Source License, Version 1.0 - March 16, 1999 used for Darwin, which is a complete Open Source operating system based on the foundation layers for Mac OS X Server.
		TIS Firewall Toolkit License (FWTK): a licence with modifiable source, non transferable, free for private use.
	pauillac.inria.fr /~lang/hotlist/free/licence (1983 words)

	unofficial GTA3 Reference Handbook - Legal
		The original version of the license may be found at http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml.
		If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Handbook, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
		But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Handbook, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
	ref3.gta.mendelsohn.de /legal.html (727 words)

	Terms and Conditions for using BioDirectory (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-23)
		BioDirectory is a compilation of many different volunteer contributions, which includes the majority of the life and medical sciences contributions from the Open Directory, as well as paid-for curation of content funded by Oxford Informatics Ltd, and the totality of content from Bioinformatics.Net.
		For practical purposes RSS and XML-feeds of data from BioDirectory.com are likely to be subject to both licences (The BioDirectory Open Content Licence, Open Directory License) if the copyright tag appears (in XML or RSS feeds), and if the relevant web page on BioDirectory includes an attribution to the Open Directory.
		[...] In plain English, the license relieves the author of any liability or implication of warranty, grants others permission to use the Content in whole or in part, and insures that the original author will be properly credited when Content is used.
	biodirectory.com /terms.html (2148 words)

	[No title]
		You must cause the modified content to carry prominent notices stating that you changed it, the exact nature and content of the changes, and the date of any change.
		or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License, unless otherwise permitted under applicable Fair Use law.
		, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
	www.gimp.org /docs/plug-in/legalese.html (680 words)

	K + Licensing (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-23)
		The Open Content License is an Open Source method of distributing information.
		It allows anyone to replicate the information on a site so long as details regarding its origin is retained, and protects the original author from abuse of their work.
		The Artistic License is another Open Source license for distributing software.
	kimihia.org.nz /about/license (274 words)

	Open Game Licenses
		The second requirement means that the license must have a mechanism to ensure that the rights it grants cannot be taken away, either by the original contributor of the material, of the copyright holder of the license text itself, by an action taken on behalf of a 3rd party, or any other process.
		If you are aware of any additional licenses that should qualify for this list, or if you have concerns about any of these listed licenses, please let the Foundation know.
		The Open Content License by OpenContent qualifies as long as neither of the License Options in Section VI of the license are used.
	www.opengamingfoundation.org /licenses.html (338 words)

	Sensei's Library: SL Copyright
		All material on Sensei's Library is copyright by SenseisLibrary, the authors, or current copyright holders and is distributed under the terms of the Open Content License (see below).
		By submitting material to Sensei's Library you grant everyone the rights to copy, distribute, and modify the material under the terms of the Open Content License.
		It also grants others permission to modify and redistribute the Content if they clearly mark what changes have been made, when they were made, and who made them.
	senseis.xmp.net /?SLCopyright (1119 words)

	Savannah Administration - Tasks: task #4720, Submission of potto [Savannah] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-23)
		At second, I'd recommend using the standard license notice(s), plus the GFDL included as a section of the documentation; then in each documentation source code, use the tiny license notice(s) (+ copyright notice(s)) that can be found at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto.html
		At third, everything I told you about the GNU FDL must be followed for the "Potto license" as well, of course, there are no differences for the general including of license and copyright information.
		The "Open Content License" is incompatible with the GNU FDL, so you we cannot host your project with this license and your "Potto Project License" looks GNU FDL incompatible, too.
	savannah.gnu.org /task/?func=detailitem&item_id=4720> (1368 words)

	[LuCAS] OpenContent (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-23)
		We've seen several websites pick up the license for their content, ranging from the popular MacOS Rumors to The Japanese History Documentation Project.
		I would like to recommend to the community that it is time for OpenContent to update its license.
		There has been some (deserved) confusion between the OpenContent License (OPL, after its original name "OpenContent Principles and License") and the newer, but separate, Open Publication License (also, conveniently, OPL).
	listas.hispalinux.es /pipermail/lucas/2000-January/001688.html (391 words)

	Le Licenze
		Blender stesso viene rilasciato sotto la GNU General Public License.
		OpenContent License (OPL) Version 1.0, July 14, 1998.
		The original version of this document may be found at http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml LICENSE Terms and Conditions for Copying, Distributing, and Modifying Items other than copying, distributing, and modifying the Content with which this license was distributed (such as using, etc.) are outside the scope of this license.
	www.kino3d.com /manual20/BlenderManualIIit/appendix_licenses.html (648 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)