Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Open Publication License" in English language version.
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.
This license does not qualify as free, because there are restrictions on charging money for copies. We recommend you do not use this license. Please note that this license is not the same as the Open Publication License. The practice of abbreviating "Open Content License" as "OPL" leads to confusion between them. 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.
[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.
