discuss: Dead links; linuxdoc.org (was: Dead link in a HowTo)
Subject:
Re: [discuss] Dead links; linuxdoc.org (was: Dead link in a HowTo)
From:
"James Hess" ####@####.####
Date:
21 Nov 2008 06:52:30 +0000
Message-Id: <6eb799ab0811202251y3a164804w3d11e3017fd6043b@mail.gmail.com>
I would say: automatically replace the old domain in all documents
with the working one
so that the links will be restored seamlessly. If an author has
objections, work them out
with the author case-by-case.
Make a web page listing the changed files and the details of the change.
Drop a link to that web page at the footer of every document.
So long as the 'fixed' document preserves what the author intended to
link to, I.E. the link
still points to exactly the same thing as when the document was
written, it seems
like no real modification has taken place.
It is still the same link to the same thing. It is debatable whether
the work has changed at all.
The actual text of the links included as references is not part of the
copyright work,
in fact, they're provided by a third party; it's the choice of which
links to include which
matters.
Otherwise many web browsers break copyright when a person 'saves' a
page and shares
with their friends; since browsers rewrite image URLs to be the local
saved files (for example)
> If we change them (all or some), it will hurt the traffic to
> linuxdoc.org, and affect their business. But it's justice to have the
> link point to where it was intended to point. Can a third party, the
> owner of our old domain, linuxdoc.org, sue for violation of licenses
> when this third party is not the copyright owner?
A license is between the owner of a copyright's exclusive rights and a party
exercising rights authorized by the copyright holder.
Unless the copyright owner transferred some of their exclusive rights or named
the third party their agent: a third party has no right to sue on the basis of
copyright infringement, since they don't own any exclusive rights.
They might have some other basis, like unauthorized linking,
anti-competitive practice,
discrimination (for removing links to them), etc, but it seems unlikely.
--
-J
