Subject:
Re: LDP Licence at http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html, and changing in-place
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
23 Dec 2003 19:46:33 -0000
Message-Id: <20031223194632.GB1166@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
> I pointed out this problem a few years ago to the staff list. I don't
> think it's quite this simple.
Please note that I didn't say it was "simple". I said there's a problem
caused by LDP's practice in the past of editing-in-place the licence at
http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html , which should now be remedied to the
degree practical. To wit: I've produced two versions. (Separately,
I've recommended some modest fixes to the later of them, but never mind
that, for now.)
You say Greg Ferguson has some others in some unspecified place, but
haven't so far produced them. So, we'll ignore those.
> I think that the various versions may have been at one time available
> but only the current one was found in COPYRIGHT.html.
Yes, quite so. Let's review, please, why this is a problem:
The problem is not really the public being misinformed; it's LDP
_authors_ getting sabotaged by that practice. As an example,
Kendall Clark wrote the LUG HOWTO in 1997, licensing it with the power
of his copyright ownership under the LDPL terms then posted at
http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html . That is a _fact_: No action or
inaction on the part of LDP can change that. In particular, LDP's
subsequently changing of what's displayed at
http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html did not and cannot alter the licences
applicable to authors' _existing_ LDP documents. Why? Because that's
part of the copyright property right. LDP doesn't own that right.
Key fact to remember: Nobody can "relicense" someone else's copyrighted
material. Purporting to do so is (technically) copyright violation, a tort.
Some years later, having made no further changes, he asked me to assume
maintenance, presumably in reliance on the LDPL's forking ("ShareAlike")
properties. I did so starting in 2002.
And, in due course, I wondered about the rights grant under which I was
extending and repairing Clark's property. The HOWTO said look at
http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html . So I did, and found LDPL v2.0.
Except, oops! The date stamp says that licence was last revised 12
January 1998, meaning Clark never elected the licence text now posted
there, and probably never even saw it. In consequence, _I don't know_
what rights I (and others) have to that HOWTO -- but I know for certain
that what's posted there is an LDP substitution for what Clark pointed
to.
My point is that, by posting as links _on_ http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html
all versions that can be located, LDP will be making a good-faith effort
to help authors rectify this situation. Document maintainers can then
look at the date stamps on listed licence versions, to try to determine
what applies to them.
In my case, being aware of the problem and knowing how to reach Clark, I
can also:
o Ask Clark to relicense his work under some text that _can_ be found.
o Ask Clark to assign his copyright ownership to me.
o Edit the LUG HOWTO text to say:
Copyright (C) 2003, Rick Moen. Copyright (C) 1997 by Kendall
Grant Clark. This document may be distributed under the terms set
forth in a LDP licence formerly located at
http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html during early 1999, but now lost
and containing terms probably similar to those currently shown
there, but not definitely.
Please note that the latter accurately describes my current situation.
>> As many as possible prior LDP License versions should be located and
>> archived.
> No. I don't think any more effort should be put into this unless you are
> strongly motivated to do it.
To reiterate: I've _already done_ the required effort -- unless you (or
others) can produce more versions. All LDP need do is post what I've
found.
> It would be confusing to have more than one license there.
Correction: Your impression of a current _lack_ of confusion is an
illusion. That already-present confusion is merely papered over by LDP's
unfortunate practice of editing-in-place the historic licence text.
> Furthermore, explaining that licenses are lost wouldn't help much either.
Yes, actually it would. The present situation amounts to inadvertantly
misleading LDP maintainers whose text links to that URL. When one has
caused a problem like that, however inadvertantly, a good-faith effort
to remedy it is always worthwhile -- especially when someone hands you
the work on a platter, already done.
> [quotes LDPL v2.0's copyleft clause:]
> This implies that you can modify it and license the modified work under
> any license you choose, including the most non-free license like
> Microsoft's, etc.
Absolutely no. Again, the ability to "relicense" is legally a monopoly
of the copyright owner. (That is, he can release additional instances
of the covered work under different terms. That is among the many
reserved rights, under copyright law.)
--
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
