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:
26 Dec 2003 03:34:31 -0000
Message-Id: <20031226033124.GD717@lafn.org>
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 12:54:28PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> 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
> > any 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).
(I corrected a typo above: and --> any)
>
> No, it doesn't imply this at all, and this is not a loophole.
But it does imply this.
> The licence doesn't need to forbid you from removing terms from it;
> copyright law does that for you.
This is only true if you don't modify the document
> Unless the licence explicitly permits it, I am most certainly not
> allowed to relicence documents issued under the LDPL.
Ditto: This is only true if you don't modify the document
> 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.
It's more that this. Once you make changes, the entire doc can be
licensed under a license of your own choosing. The old license of
course applies to the old unmodified doc. Thus the added content is
only under the new license, while the old content utilized in the new
doc may be obtained under the old license or under the new license.
If it's obtained under the new license, it's intermingled with new
material and the new license might not permit it's separation.
> The reason why prohibiting additional restrictions is useful is that
> the additional creative effort
This "effort" can be quite trivial and consist of only changing one
sentence, etc.
> 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,
This license is for all of the modified work.
> 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.
It can do harm, because the original may be partly outdated and few want
to look at it, even if it's free. Ditto for the one under the new
license. But the next license, which could be non-free, may contain
up-to-date information. Since it's non-free, you may have to pay to
look at it. Yet it incorporates a lot of useful work by the original
author which s/he intended to be free but isn't in this case. Well,
it's free if you read the original doc, but since it's outdated, why
would one want to read this?
> > 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.
Not so.
> 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.
True, but what does this have to do with the loophole? The loophole can
be done since the LDPL allows a modifier to rewrite the license.
David Lawyer
