Subject:
Re: new documentation licence
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
25 Nov 2003 08:32:29 -0000
Message-Id: <20031125083155.GI738@lafn.org>
> > 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.
>
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:04:00PM +1100, Mary Gardiner wrote:
> 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).
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2003, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
> > 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 licence, 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."
There are some good reasons for keeping it "mine". One is that it may
keep someone else from wrecking it due a botched job of modification.
Secondly, it gives you a chance to pick someone good to turn it over to.
You need to check out this person's writing, etc. This likely wasn't
done for the case of the HOWTOs Al Dev took over.
> 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.
This can be in the license too. It can allow modification if the author
can't be located by searching on the Internet. Another possibility is
to require that anyone distributing a version which they've modified
must email the original author (at the address shown in the most recent
version of the author's work). Just modifying a doc for one's own use
or for a closed group, shouldn't be of concern. But if they then
distribute this modification to the world, then it's more significant.
>
> 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".
But many of them do but LDP has no list to put this request on. I would
like to do this for some of my HOWTOs, but there's no clear way to
proceed. So if we offered a way, then I think a lot of authors would
use it and we would have to put more effort into finding good authors.
It's not hard to do. You need to follow various mailing lists and
select those who write clearly and seem to know what they are talking
about. One place to start is with the mailing lists of LUGs.
> 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.
or unsubscribe to the mailing list, or quit their current email service
and neglect to get their mail forwarded (possibly related to moving far
away), or change their email address to avoid spam. For LDP authors, they
can just neglect to keep current in the topic of their doc
> So I realistically assume that when I drop documents, it is likely to
> be suddenly and I may not be in a position to relicence, so the
> licence 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.
I'm not sure there should be a default. But there should be various
options in the License like the Creative Commons has, only much better
:-).
> 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
>
> ______________________ http://lists.tldp.org/
>
>
David Lawyer
