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:
19 Jan 2004 07:11:25 -0000
Message-Id: <20040119071123.GQ20887@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Guylhem Aznar ####@####.####
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:53:51 -0800
> Rick Moen ####@####.#### wrote:
> > Well, I had some success: quantity of two. They're now linked from
> > http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law with descriptions that
> > indicate the URL they were posted to and the date of LDP adoption.
>
> Whabout about creating a separate "history" page in the copyright section?
I'm not sure I understand this question. Sorry.
> > Unfortunately, the authors of covered documents did not specify "the
> > licence now posted to http://www.tldp.org/COPYRIGHT.html, changing
> > automatically to any future versions LDP later posts to that location".
> > You can argue that they implied such an arrangement, but it's anyone's
> > guess as to whether a judge would agree that their intent can be thus
> > inferred.
>
> Right. Are we willing to take such a bet? I'm not. The documents which
> can't be salvaged should be dropped.
In my view, this would be a big step in the _wrong_ direction, but you
probably already can predict my view, so I won't dwell on it. (Briefly,
LDP by editing-in-place a licence that has been referenced by URL has
created an ambiguity problem. Removing all versions of the licence
merely compounds the existing problem.)
I am glad, in any event, to have sidestepped this situation in regard to
my own HOWTO (by arranging to reissue it under different terms entirely).
> The problem I see is the variety of licenses and the lack of
> interoperability.
Huh? I'm afraid that, once more, I do not follow.
Licence interoperability has been a constant truth since the earliest
days of software and derivative works. Variety is an inevitable
consequence of people's desire to achieve diverse sets of results, and
is likewise something people have had to contend with basically forever.
It is unclear to me in what regard these are "problems" in any respect
that particularly concerns LDP.
> If we can't agree on a common license, we should at least define some
> bases such as relicensing to a common TLDP license following some
> criterias (like being recognized by the FSF and Debian, changing the
> document title, adding the former author name to a "table of authors",
> etc. ) in extreme cases such as this one.
It is likewise unclear to me why you would wish to "agree on a common
licence", and unclear to me what would be achieved by doing so. (I hope
you are aware that "relicensing" is something possible only to copyright
holders, in any event.)
> It would not force license down authors throat- only make sure that
> if they can't be reached for any reason (death?) their documents can
> still be useful.
Any forkable licence -- or multiple forkable licences -- would assure
that.
> This would ensure interoperability.
I'm not sure what you mean by the term "interoperability". It is
extremely rare for a dervative work of documentation to be created using
material from two upstream original documents, let alone two such
documents under incompatible licence terms without the opportunity to
secure licence-exception permission from the copyright owners.
--
Cheers, Founding member of the Hyphenation Society, a grassroots-based,
Rick Moen not-for-profit, locally-owned-and-operated, cooperatively-managed,
####@####.#### modern-American-English-usage-improvement association.
