discuss: OPL question?
Subject:
OPL question?
From:
Chris Riddoch ####@####.####
Date:
1 Aug 2001 01:52:10 -0000
Message-Id: <871ymw4kp6.fsf@peakpeak.com>
Hi, everyone.
I was just reminded by a recent thread that I have a question about
the OPL, and the free licenses in general. The OPL's mailing list
seems thoroughly empty of everything but spam, and I think this is a
fairly important question...
I'm certainly not well versed in copyright law (yet), but I have a
suspicion that there is a discrepancy in the intent of different parts
of the OPL:
> Section IV, clause 5: "The original author's (or authors') name(s) may
> not be used to assert or imply endorsement of the resulting document
> without the original author's (or authors') permission."
> Last paragraph of section I: "Any publication in standard (paper) book
> form shall require the citation of the original publisher and author.
> The publisher and author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of
> the book."
If I am the author of a work, and my name appears on the cover of a
modified version of my work as its author, doesn't that *necessarily*
imply endorsement? The assumption the average non-license-reader will
have is that the work exists with my name on it because I gave
permission for it to be published, whether such permission was
actually given or not.
S. IV, c. 5 seems, from that point of view, not a very strong
protector of the original author's reputation. Suppose an author has
very high standards for the quality and accuracy of his/her writing,
and no way to verify that other authors making modifications to the
work will be held to the same standards. In the event that changes
were made that decrease the quality of the work, the author's
reputation would be damaged, because only *that* author's name would
be listed on the cover.
*Even if* a full list of modifications and the author of those
modifications are provided inside the book, the *implication* remains
that the author on the cover endorsed those changes, by the author's
name being on the cover, regardless of whether permission was given or
not.
This seems to put the author in the role of Perpetual Editor, in order
to protect his/her reputation. How could the license be modified to
protect the author's reputation and still allow modification? I *do*
agree with the principle of free software, and the arguments behind
allowing revisions, but people *expect* software to be made by more
than one author, like a collaborative work. With free software, it's
expected that even if it doesn't work quite right, it can be modified
to work.
...But there's a different kind of responsibility involved in the
authorship of documentation. I can easily imagine a reader skipping
over the legalese, starting to read, trying an example, and thinking
"Psh. This is *wrong*! I'll remember to avoid *that* author's stuff in
the future." The scenario would be particularly tragic if the change
were made by someone besides the author!
Another problem: Suppose a publisher were to make a printed version of
the collected LDP works. The OPL seems to say that the authors' names
would need to be listed on the *cover* of the book. All the
authors. Is that really a reasonable requirement, for a compilation on
the scale of something like the LDP?
Reminder: My goal in asking this is *not* to start a license flame-war.
I haven't investigated the other licenses, and have no strong opinions
about which license is better, I just think I have an idea some of the
important issues involved in free licenses.
--
Chris Riddoch | epistemological
####@####.#### | humility
