Subject:
Re: LDP Licence at http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html, and changing in-place
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
26 Dec 2003 11:32:34 -0000
Message-Id: <20031226113144.GA18364@lafn.org>
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 11:46:32AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> 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.
It's www.ibiblio.org/ldp_old but it's not of much use.
>
> > 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.
True. But if the author failed to make a copy of his/her license and
contents of COPYRIGHT.html changed, no one knows what the license was.
> 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.
OK. I would normally agree with you. But the situation is that we
can't find any versions at all that might be useful. I'm sorry that I
didn't realize this earlier. I had to look over some old emails in
order to recall the situation better. If you note in the "LDP Policy
Appendices" which are part of v2.0, it says that the license is at
LICENSE.html. But no one used that as a link in a HOWTO so no one
apparently used v2.0. However, since the references in the HOWTOs refer
to the LDP Licence and don't mention the "Copying License" and also use
the words suggested for reference in the LDPL, they all seem to be links
to earlier numbered versions on the LDPL, all of which are lost. Thus
if we put v2.0 and the Copying License there, we would be putting there
licenses that no one used. Except that the LDPL v2.0 is somewhat close
to version 1.x which was apparently used. So v2.0 is the closest we can
come to the actual license.
Well, I think that we could add a note to the start of v2.0 that it is
not exactly the same license as the author originall used. Do you
agree?
> 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.
or ask Clark to accept what is at COPYRIGHT.html as the license.
> 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.
I've tried but no luck.
>
> > 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.
No, both you and I have utterly failed to find the versions used.
>
> > 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.
True but, this was 6 years ago. By the way, here are some more urls:
http://www.tldp.org/copyright.html
http://www.tldp.org/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html
Both contain the old "Copying License". Late in 1999, Guylhem updated
the Copying License at http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html by removing
the statement that it applies to all LDP documents. Also note that the
Copying License has the following provisions:
* Any translation or derivative work of Linux Installation and
Getting Started must be approved by the author in writing before
distribution.
* If you distribute Linux Installation and Getting Started in part,
instructions for obtaining the complete version of this manual
must be included, and a means for obtaining a complete version
provided.
This license is for the "Getting Started" guide. Now if a HOWTO were to
link to this (and a couple of them did --don't think they still do) do
these provisions that apply to the "Getting Started" Guide also apply to
their HOWTO? It seems that this was a major mistake in the Copying
License. It's never been corrected.
Some people just copied the license used by the HOWTO coordinator that
said that the HOWTO coordinator could modify the license. They failed
to change it to state that they (and not the HOWTO coordinator) could
modify the license.
So as you see, LDP has made all sorts of mistakes in the past regarding licenses.
> > 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.
See above. We've both utterly failed to find the license used.
>
> > [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.
I argue yes
> 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.)
This changes if the copyright owner uses a license that permits
relicensing, as LDPL does if one modifies the doc.
David Lawyer
