discuss: new documentation license
Subject:
Re: new documentation license
From:
Mary Gardiner ####@####.####
Date:
25 Nov 2003 02:04:08 -0000
Message-Id: <20031125020400.GA26313@titus.home.puzzling.org>
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 02:47:26PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > A "free" licence after all definitions I know never includes a
> > requirement to contact the original author before redistributing.
or, more importantly, before *modifying*. A free licence in the way I
understand the word allows people to modify my work without consulting
or even notifying me. (Some free licences do stipulate then that the
name of the original author or project be removed or changes marked
etc.)
So, for example, the Creative Commons No Derived Works variations are
not free (the CC has lots of licences, some of them include a "No
Derived Works" clause that forbid modifications).
> Agreed.
>
> I am seriously torn when it comes to "free" documentation the way (for
> example) Debian would like to see it done. If I write software and
> release it under a free license, I understand that the software will
> be picked up by someone else, probably renamed and released again with
> a few minor changes. And for some reason I'm totally OK with this;
> however, when I release technical documentation there's something
> inside of me that doesn't want it to be "free"--I want it to be
> "mine."
I have this inclination too, but I'm trying to fight it. The main
reasons are these:
1. mortality
This is obviously morbid, but any licence that requires that you
contact the author and or get them to approve changes means that the
document/software is unchangable as soon as the author dies (or is
seriously incapacitated or unreachable, but death is final). Presumably
the inheritor of their copyright would serve as a standin, but very
very few people in Free Software would appoint a literary executor
who'd be willing to put the effort into maintaining their work. You
could conceivably use your will to relicence your work, but its a bit
hard to publish that this has happened.
For Free Software, I would like to produce work that outlives my active
involvement with the project, and, if necessary, me.
2. burnout
In my experience, very few people think to themselves "I want to drop
my involvement in Free Software, I'll have a transition period of a
year to hand over projects". Instead by choice or not, they either
suddenly go crazy, post a massive flame to their project's mailing list
and declare that they are resigning this instant, or, more commonly,
they simply stop answering email.
So I realistically assume that when I drop documents, it is likely to
be suddenly and I may not be in a position to relicense, so the license
should helpfully state that the document can be edited by someone other
than me.
I think the inclination comes from the strong association between an
author and their work. When people use my code, they are unlikely to
read it (only collaborators and serious bughunters will read it), and
therefore my reputation does not stand or fall by my document. But all
of my documentation "users" read my writing. A bad piece of writing with
my name on it reflects more badly on me than a bad piece of code with my
name on it.
However, I don't think that the LDP should cater to these reservations
in their default licence. The Free Software movement has been through
upheavals similar to this: what if someone makes money from my work?
what if someone steals my work for their company? and has survived.
-Mary
