discuss: Documentation licensing


Previous by date: 24 May 2002 00:40:56 -0000 Re: GFDL license, Phil Kerr
Next by date: 24 May 2002 00:40:56 -0000 Re: GFDL license, David Merrill
Previous in thread: 24 May 2002 00:40:56 -0000 Re: Documentation licensing, David Lawyer
Next in thread: 24 May 2002 00:40:56 -0000 Re: Documentation licensing, ccurley.trib.com

Subject: Re: Documentation licensing
From: David Merrill ####@####.####
Date: 24 May 2002 00:40:56 -0000
Message-Id: <20020524013308.GI13311@lupercalia.net>

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 01:55:02PM -0700, David Lawyer wrote:
> 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.

That is a good point, David, and I hadn't thought of it. If an author
wants to reassign copyright to someone who can be always counted on to
keep it Free, they might consider the FSF, though.

And honestly I do not see the LDP ever commercializing anything for
profit. Yes, a random individual could work their way in without
showing their true colors, but it would take a majority of the LDP
board to do such a thing, and we all know each other well enough that
we should be comfortable the majority is strongly opposed to such
things.

Now, selling CDs for $5.00 for the LDP, which can also be downloaded
for free, I would be fine with. Selling things is not wrong, even if
they are Free! But turning it proprietary in the licensing I would
never support. Nor would the board of the LDP, Inc., I am sure.

-- 
David C. Merrill                         http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                   ####@####.####
Lead Developer                                 http://www.tldp.org

The opposite of War isn't Peace. It's Creation!
	-- RENT


Previous by date: 24 May 2002 00:40:56 -0000 Re: GFDL license, Phil Kerr
Next by date: 24 May 2002 00:40:56 -0000 Re: GFDL license, David Merrill
Previous in thread: 24 May 2002 00:40:56 -0000 Re: Documentation licensing, David Lawyer
Next in thread: 24 May 2002 00:40:56 -0000 Re: Documentation licensing, ccurley.trib.com


  ©The Linux Documentation Project, 2014. Listserver maintained by dr Serge Victor on ibiblio.org servers. See current spam statz.