discuss: Proposal for revised license and license requirements.
Subject:
Re: Proposal for revised license and license requirements.
From:
Devdas Bhagat ####@####.####
Date:
17 Jun 2005 19:49:48 -0000
Message-Id: <20050618011937.A22593@evita.devdas.geek>
On 17/06/05 12:02 -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Edward Cherlin ####@####.####
>
> > Well, then, I withdraw the part about a contract. It's back to
> > the license. We can write a license, and if we agree on it,
> > require that authors use it, or any other that we approve, in
> > order to get their work published on our server.
>
> Worth a try, I guess. My sense is that LDP has been reluctant in the
> past to impose strong requirements on documentation licensing because of
> a genuine diversity of views, among authors and likely authors, about
> what is desirable in such licences.
>
Can we draw up a list of desirable features in a license?
The document should be
[ ] Distributable
[ ] Modifiable
[ ] Credit to the original author/document must always be given
Add more features as needed. Then any license which meets those terms
should be acceptable.
> I'm not sure that LDP has decided to substantially change that stance.
> Guylhem did address the matter some months back, but I don't recall
> anything like a clear policy change.
>
> > Actually not. I am envisioning a publisher consisting of an
> > informal group of like-minded people with control of a server,
> > not a conventional publisher acting as an IP owner or licensee
> > and trying to control the use of printed publications.
>
> Ah, thank you for clarifying.
>
> > Copyright title is almost irrelevant in publishing.
>
> Since you raise that matter, nitpick: It definitely matters for licence
> enforcement.
>
> > How do we manage our document licenses today? Who enforces them?
> > How?
>
> If the latter's a real question and not rhetorical, I'll be glad to answer it,
> but I'm not clear on whether you're actually posing the question.
>
> I don't understand the former question at all, and so cannot address it.
>
> > Are there any substantive objections to my idea? We can put
> > documents out saying that they may not be modified without
> > permission of the author, EXCEPT that the author grants LDP
> > permission to use the content to create further versions under
> > the same kind of license.
>
> One problem sufficient to kill the idea, under existing circumstances, I
> noted in my earlier post: LDP has no existence as an entity in law. It
> cannot be granted "rights"/"permissions".
>
However, the LDP servers do have terms of service. It would be possible
to require that all content made available on the LDP server(s) be
licensed under one or more of an acceptable set of licenses. This update
merely requires the consent of the LDP mirrors to enforce a similar
policy, which should hopefully be easier to obtain.
License enforcement is always upto the licensor, the LDP server
administrators/owners can always enforce their terms of service.
Devdas Bhagat
