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:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
27 Dec 2003 06:00:29 -0000
Message-Id: <20031227055940.GA4406@lafn.org>
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 12:44:33AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
>
> [Re: suggested addition: "It is strongly recommended that you work with
> the author to incorporate your improvements where possible, rather
> than create a variant version, and that you attempt diligently to
> find the work's author before assuming it unmaintained."]
>
> > Something like this was in an early draft of the boilerplate license but
> > Stallman objected and claimed that it wasn't free. So we changed it.
This is the wrong context. You failed to include the text just before
my comment. Thus you distorted what I wrote by putting it in the wrong
context. It should be:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 12:41:56PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
[snip]
> This hints at moral obligations to contact the current maintainer before
> doing anything major. It could be made more explicit, e.g.:
>
> 2. The author be notified by email of the modification in advance of
> redistribution, if an email address is provided in the document.
> It is strongly recommended that you work with the author to
> incorporate your improvements where possible, rather than create
> a variant version, and that you attempt diligently to find the
> work's author before assuming it unmaintained.
Something like this was in an early draft of the boilerplate license but
Stallman objected and claimed that it wasn't free. So we changed it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I appreciate your saying that, but sadly am no wiser without:
>
> o The specific nature of that text.
> o The specific nature of Richard's objection.
> o Why LDP cares.
I'm convinced that others don't want to rehash all of this again.
I think the what I've already said should be informative.
> > Even if kept (in spite of Stallman's objections) it needs to say to
> > send the author notification at the email in the latest version.
>
> Er, no. It does not. I cannot imagine why you would say this. I
> suspect you must be misreading what I wrote.
No. You deleted what you wrote when you in your email of Tue, Dec 23,
2003 at 12:41:56PM -0800 when you sent out your last email of Fri, Dec
26, 2003 at 12:44:33AM -0800,
> > Requiring notification means that one might need to do a lot of
> > searching for the author if the email address bounces.
>
> The suggested addition does not "require notification".
It wasn't a suggested addition. It was a required addition.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 12:41:56PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> 2. The author be notified by email of the modification in advance of
but you deleted this.
> > I think that the LDP license should offer some options like the
> > Commons ones do. But not the same options. One option is that anyone
> > can modify without permission of the author.
>
> This is what Creative Commons calls "Derivs".
>
> > The other option would be that you need permission of the author
> > except where one can't readily locate the author.
>
> I note without particular objection that that would be a non-forkable
> (hence, non-free) licence. I'm sympathetic with authors who feel they
> need a greater degree of control than free licensing permits.
It can help avoid forks which result in duplication of effort. Also,
the author can try to select someone to take over the doc while
otherwise someone can take it over and do more harm than good to it.
>
> > I don't think LDPL is all that great. See my post on the loophole.
>
> Your post appears to rest on a fundamental misconception about
> copyright. To quote my earlier comment:
>
> 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.)
True, but this doesn't counter my argument.
>
> > It's not used anymore and I don't think the LDP has any links to it.
>
> This is not correct. Example:
I meant links from it's website and not links from HOWTOs on the
website.
>
> http://en.tldp.org/HOWTO/User-Group-HOWTO-8.html#ss8.1
>
> Please note that I have refuted this statement of yours previously.
What statement?
>
> > And yes, I've always been in favor of LDP having it's own license,
> > which we suggest as a possibility but don't require.
>
> I am unclear on why LDP "having its own licence" would be inherently
> good, and did not so state. In fact, I said that, generally, one wishes
> to avoid licence proliferation.
>
> What I said was that LDPL v2.0 has at least one _particular excellence_
> for LDP's needs, not found in alternatives.
David Lawyer
