Subject:
Re: LDP Licence at http://tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html, and changing in-place
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
27 Dec 2003 02:17:36 -0000
Message-Id: <20031227021642.GA3881@lafn.org>
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 05:22:49AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
>
> [Licence text that Greg Ferguson allegedly has in some unspecified place:]
>
> > It's www.ibiblio.org/ldp_old but it's not of much use.
>
> Oddly, there is _nothing at all_ at that URL. Wayback Machine finds
> nothing, either. More usefully, you later also mentioned:
Sorry, it's like a typo. I typed it correctly but I have a macro "gregf"
that changed what I typed and then I removed that but never got the
"gregf" back. It should be:
www.ibiblio.org/gregf/ldp_old
>
> > http://www.tldp.org/copyright.html
> > http://www.tldp.org/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html
>
> That provides one additional document, from among three URLs you've
> provided. Thank you. (I also checked Wayback Machine.) I've
> accordingly added it to my http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law
> index.
>
> Two things to note about this additional licence:
>
> o Unlike the other two, I know of no reason to think it was specified
> by any LDP document.
> o Its name (Linux Documentation Project Copying License) differs from
> that of the other two.
I thought that one was v2.0 of LDPL and the other was the Copying
License. Anyway, I have located a very early and unnumbered version of
the LDPL. It's at
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/historic-linux/ftp-archives/sunsite.unc.edu/Nov-06-1994/docs/HOWTO/COPYRIGHT
From the wording, it's obvious that this is the predecessor of LDPL.
But it's still not of too much help since it's too old. Also I've found
that same text in some of the Serial-HOWTOS of 1994 by Greg Hankins,
formerly a LDP leader and HOWTO coordinator. I think the "missing
links" are available somewhere. I think that what I found and the fact
that some HOWTOs refer to it or put it into their HOWTO shows that the
Copying License wasn't used much even in the early days of LDP. I
looked at most of the HOWTOs for 1994 (LDP got started in Jan. 1993) and
found no HOWTOs that used it even though it was in the Manifesto. The
statement that the Copying License applied to all LDP documents was a
joke. So what this shows the that the Copying License was never of much
significance in LDP. Before I found this out, I thought that perhaps in
the early days of LDP the Copying License was widely used. Nope. In
fact most HOWTOs in 1994 had their own copyright and many had no
copyright at all and thus, according to the claim to the LDP license,
fell under it's jurisdiction. The Copying License also claimed to cover
it but was not in the 1994 snapshot of the LDP site.
> I've revised the descriptions at the above-referenced index to better
> describe the three licences, including specifying their canonical URLs.
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm unclear on what your point is.
Well, if no one knows, why worry about it until someone takes over the
doc (or finds the "missing links").
>
> My point is that informing authors of the situation, instead of papering
> over the problem, has the benefits I mentioned previously. The author
> may look at one of the variants thus far found,
The problem is that thus far, we haven't found any of these variants yet.
I don't think anyone in LDP actually used v2.0. However, searching the
Web, I find that 60 sites have copied v2.0 and many non-LDP docs use it
as their license. This is the v2.0 that I extracted from my PC.
> recognise it, say "That's the one I used!", and change his document's
> URL to disambiguate it. Alternatively, he may say "Hmm, I guess I
> don't remember what I picked, but I'll select something _now_, to fix
> this situation of which I've been made aware." He would have the
> benefit, at that point, of LDP's advice about what is deprecated and
> what is recommended.
Seems like a good idea but we haven't found any versions yet that people
might have used. We have version 2.0 (too recent), an early undated
version that I just found, and a Copying License that seems to belong to
another family of licenses that was seldom used.
Another problem is that the v2.0 has been used by others outside of LDP and we
shouldn't break this link. What we could do is try to find the missing
versions and then email all LDP authors that link to COPYRIGHT.html with
the info. Can someone search the ibiblio site for contents, looking for
files that have no links to them? They might be in there somewhere.
> > 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.
> The fact that that licence's appendix includes an incorrect URL[1] is
> completely irrelevant to the question.
If someone used that license, would they not link to the url shown in
that license? And why do you state that is is an incorrect URL? The
version 2.0 was likely put at this url.
> I have already provided, repeatedly, an example of a HOWTO that claims
> to be under the LDP licence at http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html.
> (Technically, it said one of the predecessor forms of the URL, when I
> assumed maintenance.)
>
> > 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.
>
> The words used to describe the licence are likewise irrelevant to the
> question, for the same reason: The point is that LDP documents (using
> mine as an example) claim to be under the licence at
> http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html , which has unfortunately been edited
> in place.
No. The words used to describe the license show the intent of the
author. This is the license they intended to use. If the url they put
into the license doesn't point to the license they intended to use (or
the contents of this link altered), then that link was a mistake and
should be corrected.
I think that the Copying License put at COPYRIGHT.html around 1998 was
put there by mistake. Here's one scenario of how this might have
happened. Someone notices that the LDP Licence (LDPL) at COPYRIGHT.html
was not a copyright but a license, and moved it to LICENSE.html. Then
the deprecated Copying License was put there instead. Whoever did this,
likely didn't realize that a lot of HOWTOs linked to COPYRIGHT.html.
Now another fact about v2.0. Apparently all versions of the LDPL were
lost, but I found one on my PC and it was put at COPYRIGHT.html in 1999
to replace the Copying License there. When I was on the discussion list
in 1998, the discussion was all about the LDPL and people mentioned past
revisions of it. The implication was that a lot of HOWTOs (perhaps a
majority of them) used it. This is confirmed by finding an early
version for 1994. I don't think anyone ever mentioned a Copying
License. Note that by mistake, Guylhem Aznar updated the Copying
License in 1999 even though it was apparently never used after that. So
I got the impression that the Copying License was deprecated and only
used by very early LDP documents (if at all). Before Guylhem revised
it, it was in fact deprecated by it's own content which stated
The following copyright license applies to all works by the Linux
Documentation Project.
Now it didn't apply to all works since people were using LDPL and a
variety of other licenses. This was true back in 1994 but LDPL was just
the LDP Copyright.
> > Thus if we put v2.0 and the Copying License there, we would be putting
> > there licenses that no one used.
>
> 1. You have cited no reason to believe this to be the case. Explain,
> please. Specifically:
I have above.
>
> 2. If you wished to settle that factual question, the logical way to do
> it would be to inventory all LDP documents, and find out where they
> claim their licence terms can be read. All of them. However, it
> strikes me as a great deal easier to just post the ones believed to
> have been located _at URLs referenced by authors_.
> http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html (and equivalents) was/is one
> such URL _known_ to have been referenced by authors. Do you have
> any reason to believe either of the other two URLs you cited has
> been thus invoked by authors?
No.
I think that for the past several years, what was at COPYRIGHT.html was
not what the author intended. Thus one needs to find the 1.x versions
of LDPL. They may have been at COPYRIGHT.html at one time. Anyway,
I'll do some more checking. Perhaps the LDPL is still on the LDP site
(or at ibiblio under an old howto coordinator's directory.
> 3. You are ignoring reasons already cited why my recommendation would
> apply regardless.
>
>
> > Except that the LDPL v2.0 is somewhat close to version 1.x which was
> > apparently used.
>
> Where may I view the latter licence?
All 1.x versions are lost (unless the one I just found might be called
1.0). So they remain to be found.
>
> David, I'm getting a sense of deja vu: There seems to have been a
> pattern of you making assertions that cannot in any obvious way be
> examined. I ask questions about those; most of the time, they go
> unanswered.
I hope this email clarifies things.
>
> I'm basically about done. I've done significant work in assembling and
> classifying two licences used by LDP authors. Now, you have (after much
> wasted time) produced a third that might have been used, but you have
> failed to clarify whether there's any reason to think so. Frankly,
> assembling and classifying the texts was fairly quick and easy. By
> contrast, repeatedly going over the same ground with you has been a
> chore.
It's been a chore for me too.
>
>
> > So v2.0 is the closest we can come to the actual license.
>
> I cannot determine the semantic content of this sentence.
Well, the statement I made meant at the time I made it the v2.0 was the
closest known version to what the HOWTOs intended to link to. In other
words v2.0 was something like the 1.x versions that are lost. Now that
I've found an unnumbered version, it may be that it's more similar to
the 1.x versions that people linked to.
> > 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 originally used. Do you
> > agree?
>
> I'm sorry, but the question cannot be answered as posed. Please be
> about two orders of magnitude more specific. Frankly, it is likely that
> the question is moot, as it rests on that stuff about the incorrect URL
> in LDPL v2.0's appendix.
I meant: Add a note at the top of v2.0 stating that docs that linked to
it prior to Jan, 1998 have linked to an earlier version. Such earlier
versions are all lost. But in view of the fact that it's being used
outside of LDP, perhaps we shouldn't add such a note. I'm not sure.
>
> > No, both you and I have utterly failed to find the versions used.
>
> 1. I think you must be confused. I have located, archived, and
> classified two iterations of a licence posted at a URL known to be
> referenced in LDP documents.
>
> 2. You purport to have some reason to think those specific licences
> were never selected by any LDP authors, but I don't understand
> why you think so.
I've clearly stated the reasons why I think that it's unlikely that any
LDP author used these licenses via a link to COPYRIGHT.html. Now the
obsolete Danish-HOWTO did use the Copying License, but it was done by
linking to LDP-COPYRIGHT.
v2.0 was put there after it was deprecated and links to it from LDP
removed. The fact that no one used the link specified in v2.0 also
indicated that it wasn't used by anyone in LDP.
The other one you found there is the Copying License. Yet most of the
HOWTOs say LDP License (none say Copying license) and I believe that the
Copying License was put there by mistake. After all, Guylhem revised
this by mistake. I think that my discovery today that the LDP License
was widely used in 1994 and no one used the one in the 1994 Manifesto
(now known as the Copying License), tends to support my belief. Also
the links to COPYRIGHT.html from the HOWTOs use the exact wording that
is suggested to be used in v2.0 of the LDPL and such suggestion were
likely in earlier versions of LDPL. Thus the conclusion is that the
HOWTOs used version 1.x of LDPL which are all missing.
Of course there could be an exception or two but I think it likely that
no one linked (or intended to link) to what we've found so far. I know
that it's a strange situation
> 3. Moreover, I am puzzled that you persist in ignoring my already
> cited reasons why it's worthwhile to proceed as I suggested
> regardless of that question.
>
>
> > > > 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.
>
> I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. Please re-examine what I stated about
> the Linux User Group HOWTO, by way of example. That is a current HOWTO,
> and it is adversely affected by the situation described. I think it
> likely that many others are, likewise.
I meant that the alleged editing in place took place about 6 years ago.
It of course affect us now in a situation like yours.
>
> > 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.
>
> FYI, that clause was a no-op: Application of licences to creative works
> lies solely within the purview of the applicable copyright owners.
>
Well, LDPL was something like this. It claimed to apply to all docs
with no license of their own (a default license). If someone gave a doc
to the LDP, then, if they were told that if they didn't include a license
it would come under the default license, then the default license is
valid. I don't know if they were told this or not, and if there is no
meeting of minds (and thus no agreement reached) then for LDPL it's a
no-op like you state).
>
> > 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?
>
> Look, David, this isn't brain-surgery: If a HOWTO copyright owner
> states that a particular set of permissions applies to an instance of
> his creative work, then that is the case.
But if you put in your howto certain permissions for someone else's
howto, what does that mean? You have no right to do this but that's
what the Copying License did. By mistake of course.
>
> > It seems that this was a major mistake in the Copying
> > License. It's never been corrected.
>
> You are obsessing over meaningless trivia. That clause is likewise a
> no-op, for the exact same reasons.
>
My point is that I don't like the idea of linking to such a license.
> > > Absolutely no.
> > I argue yes
>
> Argue until you're blue in the face: You are contradicting the law.
>
> > This changes if the copyright owner uses a license that permits
> > relicensing, as LDPL does if one modifies the doc.
>
> This is mistaken. Please read the copyright statute for your country,
> as previously mentioned.
I did this some time ago. A copyright owner is allowed to give others
permission to do things with the copyrighted work. One can also sell or
give away the copyright to someone else. One can permit someone else to
make a derivative work or even permit one to change the license for the
derivative work. Note that this doesn't change the license of the
original since only the copyright owner can change that license.
An interesting case arises if the copyright owner permits derivative
works but fails to state what license they may be licensed under.
This seems to, unfortunately, be the case for Creative Commons licenses
that are neither ShareAlike nor NoDerivs. They don't state what kind of
a license is required for the derivative work. I presume it means that
one can change the license since only the ShareAlike ones prohibit
changing the license. But if one can change the license to anything,
then one could turn a NonCommercial license into a Commercial one, etc which
is a loophole in the Creative Commons license.
David Lawyer
