discuss: LDP Licence at http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html, and changing in-place
Subject:
LDP Licence at http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html, and changing in-place
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
18 Dec 2003 20:27:03 -0000
Message-Id: <20031218202702.GN9850@linuxmafia.com>
I know people get a bit frayed by licence fights. To reassure people:
This isn't one.
Some time around mid-2002, I inherited the Linux User Group HOWTO from
Kendall Clark (though it took me a while to start revision work). I
noticed without objection that it said "This document may be distributed
under the terms set forth in the LDP licence at
http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html."
Clark started the HOWTO in July 1997, and ceased maintaintaing it later
that year. (It mouldered until I picked up maintenance five-plus years
further on.) The version of the LDP licence on display at the indicated
URL is v2.0, dated 12 January 1998. So, and I apologise to
non-licensing-wonk types for whom this seems like meaningless trivia:
What specific licence was Clark's content under?
That is, he started issuing version under a pre-2.0 LDP License. His
last release, v. 1.6.2, was still under that. My first version (in 2002),
v. 1.6.3, was (necessarily) a derivative work of Clark's. In
consequence, I don't know the (technical) licensing composition of my
HOWTO. Did my additions fall under Clark's licence by default? If so,
what licence was that? The pre-2.0 licence terms aren't readily
findable. (Internet Archive doesn't have them.)
Part of the problem is that LDP has revised the LDP License in place,
without changing the URL. Contrast that with Creative Commons, which
uses URLs like http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/ . Thus,
my PerlHoo documentation directory (http://linuxmafia.com/kb/) links to
that latter URL for its covering licence.
I'm _intellectually_ curious about what the differences are between LDP
License 2.0 and any prior versions, completely aside from the LUG HOWTO.
I would suggest that LDP switch to a versioning practice similar to that
of Creative Commons, where each licence revision has a unique URL,
rather than up-revving the licence in place.
Completely separately, I happened to notice this analysis of LDP License
2.0 on the debian-legal mailing list, which may be of interest:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00282.html
--
Cheers, "A raccoon tangled with a 23,000 volt line, today. The results
Rick Moen blacked out 1400 homes and, of course, one raccoon."
####@####.#### -- Steel City News
