Re: New OPL Draft

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

I don't object to options in licenses just as a matter of principle.
But if some of the options make a license unacceptable, then I would
not recommend that license at all--because recommending it could
easily led people to see and use the bad options.

      Suppose one wanted to combine
    two related documents by piecing together subsections (and paragraphs)
    from each.  If they were both under the same license (even though
    they used different options) it might be easier to proceed.  

It would not be any easier.  Using two different sets of global
options is really using two different licenses; it may not be
apparent that that is so, but it is so.

    Another example would be where for one document, the option specifies
    that you can't modify it without permission of the author.  Then this
    could be combined with a document that used another option provided
    the author agreed.

You can do anything whatever with the work, if the author agrees.  The
license says what you can do *without* asking permission.

Without asking permission, there's no advantage in this way of using
options.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org