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:
Colin Watson ####@####.####
Date:
23 Dec 2003 12:54:30 -0000
Message-Id: <20031223125427.GD15920@riva.ucam.org>
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 12:19:07AM -0800, David Lawyer wrote:
> 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).
No, it doesn't imply this at all, and this is not a loophole. The
licence doesn't need to forbid you from removing terms from it;
copyright law does that for you. Unless the licence explicitly permits
it, I am most certainly not allowed to relicense documents issued under
the LDPL. All I can do is distribute them under the existing licence,
and possibly (thanks to the permission to distribute modified versions)
add my own changes which are distributed under a licence of my choosing.
The reason why prohibiting additional restrictions is useful is that the
additional creative effort put into the derived work entitles the author
of the derived work to choose a licence for the parts of the work
contributed by them, and they might decide to add more restrictions. But
it does no harm if they decide to distribute their work in an
unrestricted way, because the original document still carries the
restrictions listed in the LDPL, and by copyright law the author of the
derived work is not permitted to change that fact.
> 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.
This would be a clear breach of copyright law. Licences start out from
the default of "all rights reserved" (plus fair use) and offer
additional permissions over and above that; that's why they're called
licences. They don't need to enumerate everything that's forbidden.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson ####@####.####
