discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
7 Apr 2004 15:24:20 -0000
Message-Id: <20040407152415.GA22228@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
> I wouldn't completely agree. It's not 100% modifiable but the part that
> can't be modified isn't the technical part so the technical content is
> still 100% modifiable. What is wrong is that the invariant section
> needs to have an expiration date. Otherwise we can have invariant
> political statements that will be fully obsolete many decades later, but
> which will still have to be kept in the doc.
I'm surprised that you say so, since the problems go very far beyond
that. For example, derivative works not only must retain the invariant
sections unchanged, but also may not address the same topic the
invariant section covers. So, to invent an example (and I'm sure you
can think of better ones), if a GFDLed text on Perl incorporating a nice
chapter on regular expressions includes an invariant section expressing
the author's peeves against Java, then the regex section cannot be used
in a derivative text about Java.
In any event, good luck convincing GFDLed text's authors to include
expiration dates for their invariant sections. It would be a first.
> > > 2. Section 2's DRM restriction clause (banning all "technical
> > > measures to obstruct or control" reading and copying) appears to ban
> > > storing or conveying GFDL-covered content over encrypted media or
> > > links, among
>
> I don't think this was the intent and the intent can be inferred from
> the license.
Hey, neat! You could grind flour between the two halves of that sentence.
(They contradict one another.)
Make up your mind: Are you going to evaluate licences by reading their
text and seeing what they say, or by second-guessing the intentions of
some arguably related party?
In this case, the party whose "intent" is available is Mr. Stallman,
which would be relevant only in copyright matters where _he_ is the
copyright owner: The issue at law would be what rights the _owner_ has
granted. Thus, Mr. Stallman's intentions would be relevant to TLDP only
for TLDP documents he authored, currently numbering zero.
But another point is this: If the licensing is unclear even upon
careful reading, then at a minimum it's badly written. Thus my comment
that Stallman said FSF acknowledged that a post-1.2 version may have to
revise that particular section to improve it.
> All you need to include is a link to the transparent rendition.
That is true, but the transparent rendition must remain at that location
for at least one year. So, even if a document was posted for one day
before being revised, a complete transparent-copy rendition of that
one-day-long release must remain posted for a year.
So, either way, it's a big hassle.
> > I think TLDP doesnt have any explicitly stated criteria for licenses
> > that are acceptable.
>
> Oh yes we do. It's in the Manifesto.
Well: It says no mandatory fees, and suggests but doesn't require a
forkable licence, of which a (pretty good!) short example is provided.
So, basically any licence that doesn't charge money is "acceptable".
That's a start, I guess.
--
Cheers, "Don't use Outlook. Outlook is really just a security
Rick Moen hole with a small e-mail client attached to it."
####@####.#### -- Brian Trosko in r.a.sf.w.r-j
