discuss: Problems with WWW-HOWTO
Subject:
Re: Problems with WWW-HOWTO
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
22 Nov 2004 09:06:40 -0000
Message-Id: <20041122090638.GD855@davespc>
The "man" below is me.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:57:59PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Unfortunately, we have here a man who claims that GPLv2 is a contract,
I searched on Google "gpl is a contract" and "gpl is not a contract".
The score is that 271 say it's a contract, 225 say it's not. When I wrote
that it was a contract, I didn't know much about the other point of view.
> that conventional open-source licences relinquish control of relicensing
> to downstream recipients,
The above isn't a quote of what I said. However, from the open-source
definition:
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software.
The first phrase is quite clear: The license must allow modifications
and derived works. But the second part of this phrase may not be
clear to many readers. One might think it meant that people will be
able to obtain a copy of a derived work under the same license.
But it seems to only mean that a person who creates a derived work has
the option of licensing it under the same terms as the original. Thus
if the OSD-conformant license permits it, one could create a derived
work and choose the option of licensing it under a license more
restrictive than Microsoft's.
> who refers to licences as "copyrights",
I haven't done this often. But from the context it should have been
clear that I was actually referring to a license. It's common (but
technically incorrect) to use the word copyright in this way. If people
understand what you mean from the context, I think it's sometimes OK to
use "copyright" incorrectly this way, since I think that the word
"copyright" is more familiar to the public.
> and who sees nothing wrong with LDP radically editing in place a licence
> text that authors are relying on and who reference it by URL.
This simply is not true. I thought this was wrong.
Rick Moen has previously quoted me out of context, and has resorted to
unjustified ad hominem attacks on me, etc. I'm way behind on my email
and one reason is Rick Moen's posts.
David Lawyer
