Open Source Content License (OSCL) - Other/Miscellaneous licenses

[Wilson, Andrew]

Matthew Flaschen wrote: 

> Wilson, Andrew wrote:
>
>> Take new-BSD.  Sure, new-BSD allows you to redistribute in source
>> and make modifications. So far, so good.  But, it also requires you
to 
>> reproduce the entire license text, including 
>> THE FULL DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY IN SCREAMING ALL CAPS LIKE THIS.
>> Reproducing an excerpt with attribution but sans full license
>> is not allowed.
>> 
>> GPL has the same problem -- you are required to provide a full copy
of
>> GPL with each distribution of a derivative work and to mark each copy
>> with a disclaimer of warranty.
>
> This is true of GFDL as well.  You have to reproduce the full license,

> with all conditions, unless the excerpt can be considered fair use.
So 
> I don't think this is really an argument for using 
> documentation-specific licenses.

Yes, it's true of GFDL, but it's not true of CC.  A simple link
suffices for CC content.  And even GFDL only requires you to put
*one* copy of GFDL in a document, even if that document is assembled
from multiple GFDL-covered sources.  For multiple new-BSD sources
you are stuck with reproducing the full text from each licensor.

Allowing for "invariant" portions is the more serious objection
to using open source SW licenses, IMO

Andy Wilson
Intel open source technology center