discuss: LDP Licence at http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html, and changing in-place
Subject:
Re: LDP Licence at http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html, and changing in-place
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
20 Dec 2003 22:40:01 -0000
Message-Id: <20031220223918.GA1135@lafn.org>
On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 05:37:33AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
>
> [...]
>
> > Well, there is what seems to be an older license but it has no version
> > number on it. I think that prior to version 2.0 there were version
> > numbers so this is an older one. It may have co-existed with the
> > versioned series. Copies of it are still on the Internet and at LDP.
> > Perhaps it's 1.0. Note that it is also the license for a certain guide,
> > which is confusing.
> >
> > http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/docs/linux-doc-project/LDP-COPYRIGHT
>
> I think we're in luck. After experimenting with the Wayback Machine
> (Internet Archive) search facility, I've found what I think/hope is the
> whole picture:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://sunsite.unc.edu/LDP/COPYRIGHT.html
>
> Retrieving all of those snapshots and diff'ing them shows that there
> have really been only two versions, the original, un-versioned one (same
> as at your iBiblio URL), and v2.0.
>
> Technically, I checked Internet Archive's mirrored copies only through
> 2000, because when I got to 2001, their servers started flaking out on
> me (which happens). However we were already showing a basically
> unchanging v2.0 licence in 2000 -- and that's the current version number
> today -- so it seems reasonable to assume that nobody's made substantive
> changes without incrementing version numbers.
>
> The "1.0" version bears Matt Welsh's name for the author credit. 2.0
> lists Guylhem Aznar, whose displayed e-mail address changes as of the
> 2000-10-22 mirror copy from ####@####.#### to ####@####.####
> -- which is also what the current (late 2003) page says. I diffed all
> the versions I could retrieve, and found no other changes.
As I recall, Greg Hankins, the HOWTO coordinator in 1998, moderated the
HOWTO debate and wrote up what the mailing list had decided on. Guylhem
just copied the old 2.0 version which was created by Greg H. et. al.
Then in mid 1998, Eric S. Raymond tried to get us to approve a license he
drafted. Guylhem and I opposed it. There wasn't consensus to approve
it (although at first it seems that there was) so Greg Hankins restored
the old 2.0 version. But then in late 1998, the 2.0 version was
considered to be outdated and it was suggested to use GPL, etc. Also,
starting in 1969, there was a short boilerplate license in the Manifesto
that people could use. Version 2.0 was supposed to have been marked as
not recommended, and some said that the boilerplate one wasn't
recommended either.
>
> I've posted them both to my PerlHoo documentation tree's Licensing_and_Law
> category, http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law .
>
>
> Suggestion: Replace http://en.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html with a simple
> page showing two links:
>
We don't recommend either of these !
>
> o Linux Documentation Project License (LDPL) v2.0, adopted 12 January
> 1998. LDP recommends this license as a default choice for documentation.
> hyperlink to: http://en.tldp.org/LDPL/2.0/COPYRIGHT.html
>
> o Linux Documentation Project License (LDPL) v1.0, adopted 6 January
> 1997. This is an older license by Matt Welsh, used by some early
> HOWTOs and FAQs.
> hyperlink to: http://en.tldp.org/LDPL/1.0/COPYRIGHT.html
>
>
>
> (You're welcome to grab a copy of 1.0 from my PerlHoo tree.) This would
> have the benefit of straightening out the ambiguity I mentioned earlier,
> clarify the historical record, and leave an obvious spot for future
> versions to go.
>
David Lawyer
