Juergen Katins wrote:
> I am no license expert but I understand the OPL as "Do whatever you
> want with this document". You could even redistribute it as part of a
> non free book. Even more the translation of a book creates an own new
> copyright owned by the translator (who must however have the license
> to translate).

The OPL does have some openings for restrictions, including stoping you
from printing non-free hardcopies. I haven't seen the license following
the online version of Programming Ruby applying any of these
restrictions, but it is still possible that this was the intent of AWL
when releasing. Sure, we could argue that these intents have not been
properly labeled in the usage of the OPL license and that they would not
apply anyway since this clearly is a derived work, but these are the
kind of things ulcers are made of.
I am no lawyer, but I do have an impression that intent and
interpretation is the name of the lawyer-game. 

NorwayRUG are planning to get the (still very pending) norwegian
translation into print, sometime in the future. As I was reading the OPL
before meeting with a potential publisher, I was rather surprised that
AWL hadn't utilized the restriction VI.B, as I know I would have, if I
was AWL. 

Dave and Andrew, would it be an idea to add a healthy dose of paranoia
and present these two cases for AWL to get a clear statement? I don't
think this will blow up in our faces, but better safe than sorry.

-- 
(\[ Kent Dahl ]/)_    _~_    __[ http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~kentda/ ]___/~
 ))\_student_/((  \__d L b__/  NTNU - graduate engineering - 4. year  )
( \__\_õüõß/__/ ) _)Industrial economics and technological management(
 \____/_öß\____/ (____engineering.discipline_=_Computer::Technology___)