discuss: Re: LDP License loophole: (was LDP Licence: a post-2.0 modest proposal)
Subject:
Re: LDP License loophole: (was LDP Licence: a post-2.0 modest proposal)
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
23 Dec 2003 08:26:09 -0000
Message-Id: <20031223081907.GB373@lafn.org>
The LDPL v2.0 states:
All translations, derivative documents, or modified documents that
incorporate any LDP document may not have more restrictive license terms
than these ...
The five requirements on modified works stated in v2.0 are all
restrictions. For example, the requirement that the "person making the
modification must be identified" is a restriction. So do away with
such a restriction and it's less restrictive. Do this and it means that
there is no requirement to identify the person making the modification.
The same goes for the other four numbered requirements. This doesn't
sound good, but it gets worse.
The ultimate reduction of restrictions on modified works would be to
state in a new license: There are no restrictions whatsoever on
modified works.
This implies that you can modify it and license the modified work under
and license you choose, including the most non-free license like
Microsoft's, etc. This is obviously not what was intended by the people
who wrote it (unless it was intentionally done as sabotage to the LDP
which I rather doubt).
Note this is a two step process: Person A modifies it and says that
there are no restrictions on modified works. Person B modifies it some
more and issues it under a non-free license.
I pointed out this loophole previously a few years ago, but didn't use
these examples. The word "restrictive" is like a double-edge sword and
can have opposite effects. Freedom and free software both require
certain restrictions. There are both good and bad restrictions and one
needs to specify just what kind of restrictions they are talking about.
It isn't easy to do.
Also, I don't agree with the proposed changes to v2.0 but that's another
story. I don't think v2.0 is a good place to start for creating
another LDPL, but in a way it is, if you want to call the new one v3.0
(and appear to be maintaining continuity). But v2.0 needs major changes
and it also needs to be kept short and simple.
Note License (American Language) = Licence (British Language) :-)
David Lawyer
