Open Publication License
出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 (2022/12/21 13:24 UTC 版)
Open Publication License（OPL）は、文書向けの著作権公開利用許諾として、1999年に Open Content Project によって公表された[2]。この新しい利用許諾によって、1998年に Open Content Project が公表した Open Content License は破棄された[1]。2002年ないし2003年頃からは、今度はクリエイティブ・コモンズ・ライセンスによって、これまでの利用許諾の破棄が開始されることになった[1]。
- ^ a b c d e f g Wiley, David (2007年5月6日). “About the Open Publication License”. iterating toward openness. 2018年10月19日閲覧。 “[The] Open Content License (July 14, 1998), which was replaced by the Open Publication License (June 8, 1999), were the first licenses to bring the ideals of open source software to the world of content. The OCL predates the GFDL (Nov 2002) and Creative Commons (Dec 2002) by over four years, while the improved OPL predates both by over three years. The OCL was developed primarily by me... The improved OPL was written primarily by Eric Raymond after discussions with me, Tim O’Reilly, and others... The OPL was truly innovative in that, in addition to requiring citation of the original author as source, it contained two license options which authors could choose to invoke: one restricts users’ abilities to creative derivative works, while the second restricts users’ abilities to make certain commercial uses of the material. The student of open content licensing will recognize that these are exactly the options that Creative Commons now employs. What may be forgotten is that in version 1.0 of the Creative Commons licenses, Attribution was actually included in the licenses only as an option. In version 2.0 of the CC licenses (May 24, 2004) attribution was standard on every license, and there were two licenses options: one regarding derivative works, and one regarding commercial use. So in terms of high level structure, the OPL was here about five years before CC. ... Actually, the [OCL and OPL] licenses weren’t that great, seeing as I am not a lawyer, and neither was anyone else involved in the creation of the license. The concept was right, and the execution was “good enough,” but Creative Commons (with its excellent lawyers and law school students) created a better legal instrument. As I said on the opencontent.org homepage on Monday June 30, 2003: 'My main goal in beginning OpenContent back in the Spring of 1998 was to evangelize a way of thinking about sharing materials, especially those that are useful for supporting education. ... I’m closing OpenContent because I think Creative Commons is doing a better job of providing licensing options which will stand up in court [and I'm joining] Creative Commons as Director of Educational Licenses. Now I can focus in on facilitating the kind of sharing most interesting to me ... with the pro bono support of really good IP lawyers... The OpenContent License and Open Publication License will remain online for archival purposes in their current locations. However, no future development will occur on the licenses themselves.' ... Anyone interested in a license like this is far better off using a Creative Commons license.”
- ^ a b c “Open Publication License”. opencontent.org. Open Content Project (1999年6月8日). 2018年10月18日閲覧。
- ^ a b “Debian-legal summary of the OPL”. Lists.debian.org. 2018年10月18日閲覧。
- ^ a b c d “Various Licenses and Comments about Them - Open Publication License, Version 1.0”. fsf.org. The Free Software Foundation (2018年10月17日). 2018年10月18日閲覧。 “This license can be used as a free documentation license. It is a copyleft free documentation license provided the copyright holder does not exercise any of the “LICENSE OPTIONS” listed in Section VI of the license. But if either of the options is invoked, the license becomes nonfree. In any case, it is incompatible with the GNU FDL... Please note that this license is not the same as the Open Content License. These two licenses are frequently confused, as the Open Content License is often referred to as the “OPL”. For clarity, it is better not to use the abbreviation “OPL” for either license. It is worth spelling their names in full to make sure people understand what you say.”
- ^ “Licenses by Name”. Open Source Initiative. 2018年10月19日閲覧。
- ^ a b “OpenContent License (OPL)”. opencontent.org. Open Content Project (1998年7月14日). 1998年12月6日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2018年10月18日閲覧。
- ^ Wiley, David (1999年1月17日). “Updating the OpenContent License and Clarifying a Few Things”. Open Content Project. 2000年8月16日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2018年10月19日閲覧。
- ^ a b Cathedral and Bazaar on catb.org
- ^ Barr, Joe (2003年1月13日). “Meet the Perens”. LinuxWorld Magazine. Template:Cite webの呼び出しエラー：引数 accessdate は必須です。
- ^ “Linux Gazette : FAQ : General FAQ”. linuxgazette.net. Template:Cite webの呼び出しエラー：引数 accessdate は必須です。
- ^ Archive:Relicensing OPL to CC BY SA, Fedoraproject.org
[続きの解説]
「Open Publication License」の続きの解説一覧
- 1 Open Publication Licenseとは
- 2 Open Publication Licenseの概要
- 3 採用
- Open_Publication_Licenseのページへのリンク
