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:
Tabatha Marshall ####@####.####
Date:
23 Dec 2003 20:13:03 -0000
Message-Id: <1072210351.18316.123.camel@mysticchild>
On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 11:53, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Tabatha Marshall ####@####.####
> > It might not be bad to find a place to put them for historical value,
> > but I agree, they shouldn't be where we offer our recommendations.
>
> 1. I spoke of altering what's at http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html ,
> to clarify its history, _because_ existing LDP documents contain
> embedded references to that URL as the covering licence. Because
> of past editing-in-place practices, the current contents there are
> misleading. I'm suggesting making them be no longer misleading.
I am "for" that. :D Your explanation of the ensuing confusion over the
version that was edited makes perfect sense, and in the future, if we
are to proceed with an LDP license, making sure that the older ones are
marked as such and new ones are also indicated as such, would help
immensely!
> 2. If the LDP wants to deprecate what's displayed there, it need only
> write "<strong>This licence is deprecated.</strong>" at the top of
> any such licence.
And I see why you say this: there are documents in the collection using
the older LDP license(s). My only fear is causing confusion for authors
by showing the older licenses (that's not to say your suggestion isn't
sound, just an observation!). Since some of the documents use the older
LDP licenses, we do have a responsibility to house them. However, if
they were somewhat separated from the pack (and I would now consider OPL
in the same category, based on what you said), then agreed - we should
house copies, as long as they are easily distinguishable from what's now
recommended.
> 3. LDP can post its recommended licensing _either_ there or somewhere
> else entirely.
I believe the page that discusses licenses should make recommendations,
explain the different types of licenses (What is ShareAlike? What is
forkable? A short list of potential pros/cons?), and provide links to
deprecated versions of the LDP license, making things more clear. If a
newer version of the LDP license was issued, it would belong in our
recommended section.
I'm hoping we could this as an opportunity to better clarify things for
authors when they visit our site in search of this kind of info.
Copyright and licensing do come up in the final review process - we
often discuss the choices with authors, and this would help simplify
what our reviewers are doing. If we can provide links, and a page of
information, the author can use this to make their own educated
decision.
Tab
--
Tabatha Marshall
Web: www.merlinmonroe.com
Linux Documentation Project Review Coordinator (http://www.tldp.org)
Linux Counter Area Manager US:wa (http://counter.li.org)
