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:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
27 Dec 2003 06:39:20 -0000
Message-Id: <20031227063919.GD1166@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
> 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.
Sure.
You've informed us that you basically don't get copyright law, that you
have copyrights hopelessly confused with contracts, that you think GPL
is a contract despite it saying the contrary in section 0, that you think
recipients can relicence copyrighted materials without owning the
copyrights, that about half the URLs you post as holding contents of
interest will turn out to be 404, that you have copyrights and _licence_
statements confused, that you think a work with no licence statement
"has no copyright", that a clause on a Web page magically swoops out to
encumber documents whose authors haven't chose to apply the clause to
their property, that URLs invisibly hidden in fumbled HTML of a Web page
somehow affect licensing, that the intent of someone who drafts a
copyright licence but isn't the copyright holder determines the
licence's legal effect, that a mismatch of the _name_ of a licence would
somehow overrule a copyright holder's clear statement that the licence
at so-and-so URL contains the licence terms for this copy, that a
"default licence" somehow magically applies to copyrighted works without
the actual consent of the copyright owner, that you'll gratuitously
inject irrelevant digressions about alleged defects in the Open Source
Definition...
...and that you'll invent creative reasons why LDP shouldn't take simple
steps to disambiguate LDP's tactical mistake of editing-in-place the
licence at a URL referenced by current LDP documentation. Even when the
work's been already done and delivered on a figurative platter.
Fortunately, you seem to be the only person with any of these problems.
> > The suggested addition does not "require notification".
>
> It wasn't a suggested addition. It was a required addition.
You were speaking of _my_ suggested addition (to LDPL v2.0). The way I
wrote it, it did not "require notification". QED.
[My comment without objection that requiring author permission except
where one can't readily locate the author would make the licence
non-forkable, and thus non-free:]
> 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.
{shrug}
Not your decision, when it's not your work, is it? Nor mine. But
weren't -=you=- the one suggesting such licences? Are you now arguing
with _yourself_?
[LDPL "loophole":]
> > 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.
Your argument rested on the incorrect assumption that creator of a
derivative can "relicense" the original work under LDPL v2.0. Since
the premise is incorrect, so is the conclusion. QED.
> > > 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.
One more time: The HOWTOs _are_ part of the LDP Web site. And my HOWTO
(and almost certainly others) links to the URL. QED.
> > 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?
The statement that the licence isn't used any more and that the LDP
doesn't have any links to it.
--
Cheers, "That scruffy beard... those suspenders... that smug ex-
Rick Moen pression.... You're one of those condescending Unix users!"
####@####.#### "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a real computer."
-- Dilbert
