discuss: Re: getting rid of the linuxdoc.org problem vote requested
Subject:
Re: [discuss] getting rid of the linuxdoc.org problem vote
requested
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
4 Dec 2008 03:53:53 +0000
Message-Id: <20081204034506.GA16072@davespc>
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 10:39:42AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
>
> > I agree. I don't think it's an actual violation of copyright law since it
> > restores the original intent of the author. It may violate the letter of
> > the law, but not the interpretation of the law under circumstances that
> > were not foreseen when the law was established.
>
> In the event of dispute, which do you really think a judge is going to
> consult: your second-guessing of the "original intent of the author",
It's obvious that an author that linked to linuxdoc.org (before we
became tldp.org) intended to link to the LDP website. It's not
"second-guessing".
> or the clear omission of a right to modify from the copyright holder's
> expressed licensing? Especially if the copyright owner's standing in
> front of the judge saying "No, my intent was to link to linuxdoc.org",
But since linuxdoc.org then pointed to LDP, the intent must have been
to link to LDP. Would the judge believe him if he said his intent was
to link to an advertising site since he could somehow foresee LDP
losing their domain name?
> which element is after all prerequisite (among many other things, most
> of the others being implausible) to the matter ever being litigated.
>
> And I don't think it's correct to suggest that link rot and domain
> squatters are wholly unknown to the law -- nor to LDP's past document
> creators.
I think that few, if any, authors ever considered this. When I linked
to linuxdoc.org in my docs, I never thought about the possibility of
LDP remaining active but losing their domain name. What about
tldp.org. Do authors that link to it expect that LDP will lose that
domain in the future (if LDP is still active)?
David Lawyer
