discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation licensing
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
23 May 2002 23:58:30 -0000
Message-Id: <20020523135501.B545@lafn.org>
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 11:32:13AM -0600, Chris Riddoch wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
> After briefly skimming the recent threads on document licensing
> issues, a general issue comes to mind.
>
> I'm sure someone has a simple answer that demonstrates the needs met
> by the current system rather than another, but why exactly are the
> copyrights of HOWTOs and other documents not simply signed over to the
> LDP?
Even if the LDP were a legal entity and could own copyrights, there
might still be some danger if LDP owned the copyrights. Suppose LDP
was taken over by people that wanted to commercialize on documentation
and sell it? Takeovers can be insidious where people volunteer to help
the LDP, pretending to support free software, and then reveal their true
intentions and commercialize it. So free documentation needs to have a
free license to keep it free. Even in this case, the copyright owner
can always change the license on a new version. The old version remains
under it's original license.
Also free documentation needs a license to allow copying and
distribution of it. Otherwise it would need to be public domain in
order to be able to copy and distribute it. The problem with public
domain is that anyone can modify it and then copyright the modified work
with no license at all.
David Lawyer
