discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation licensing
From:
David Merrill ####@####.####
Date:
24 May 2002 16:38:12 -0000
Message-Id: <20020524173022.GU18759@lupercalia.net>
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 09:45:23AM -0600, ####@####.#### wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 01:26:27PM -0500, David Merrill 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?
> >
> > We do not yet have any legal entity, so cannot own copyright. Once we
> > have a legal organization set up, which we are working on, then we
> > will have to discuss it as a policy issue.
>
> As I understand the law (not being an attorney), the LDP is an
> "unincorporated association", and is perfectly capable of holding
> copyrights and otherwise acting as a legal entity.
Hmmm. Interesting.
Well, I'm not going to pursue it. If someone wants to give their LDP
copyright rights, then fine, we can take it.
> Perhaps the FSF could suggest an attorney to deal with these issues?
I think we have other things to worry about. It's not something that
many authors would do, anyway, so I think the effort is better spent
elsewhere. Besides, we will be a legal entity this year anyway, so the
issue will become moot.
--
David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project ####@####.####
Lead Developer http://www.tldp.org
When people understand what Microsoft is up to, they're outraged.
--Tim O'Reilly, O'Reilly & Associates
