discuss: My obsolete HOWTOs being sold as a book
Subject:
Re: My obsolete HOWTOs being sold as a book
From:
David Merrill ####@####.####
Date:
18 Feb 2001 04:15:25 -0000
Message-Id: <20010217231426.D15807@lupercalia.net>
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 07:48:27PM -0800, Gabe Wachob wrote:
> What if you require in the license that a "history" or "change log"
> section always be included in the document or any derivative work. This
> history section could contain the last time the document was edited and a
> brief note about what edits were performed. It should also contain a URL
> pointing to the current version of the document (as of the time of that
> entry in the history section).
>
> This way, if a publisher takes your document that is (lets say) 3 years
> old and stuffs it into a book, the document will contain prominent notice
> that the document is old. If you say something like "Information in this
> document changes frequently, you should check for a new version of this
> document if it is dated more than 6 months before the time you read this".
> Now, of course it doesn't prevent old versions from being published, but
> it does give a reader the notice that you might be seeking.
We recommend the use of the GFDL or OPL sans options A & B. Either of
these licenses allows you to include nonvariant sections such as you
describe. Maybe recommending that authors use those features to
prevent this occurrence. The license recommendations are already in
the LAG.
The request to check for a newer version, along with the link to the
LDP and to the author's `official' site should be recommended in the
LAG, I think. I don't have time to do it; I'm reviewing documents.
I've just scratched the surface. :-/
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, David Merrill wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 12:58:23PM -0800, David Lawyer wrote:
> > > I wrote this on Sun Feb 4 22:17:11 2001 but due to my email
> > > configuration it was bounced:
> > >
> > > I recently found out that I'm a joint author of a book published in
> > > Jan. 1999 that is still being sold. It's called "Linux Modem and
> > > Serial Communications". The howtos it's based on are very obsolete
> > > and people that buy such a book are being cheated.
> > >
> > > Thus I now wish that I had not permitted free copying in my license.
> > > Except that LDP requires that a license must permit free copying.
> > > Also, most non-LDP mirror sites have stale versions of my howtos.
> > > While it's wrong to give away stale versions, it's even worse to sell
> > > stale versions and I think that a prohibition of this should be
> > > permitted in a free license.
> >
> > How would you word it? I want to avoid the problem of an author
> > abandoning a document and it having to die, but I do see your point.
> > Can you propose a wording that does both things?
> >
> >
--
Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project ####@####.####
Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
Finger me for my public key
Collaboration, n.:
A literary partnership based on the false assumption that the
other fellow can spell.
