discuss: August summary
Subject:
Re: [discuss] August summary
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
9 Oct 2005 05:47:57 -0000
Message-Id: <20051009054809.GB1966@lafn.org>
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 08:32:17AM +0200, jdd wrote:
> ####@####.#### wrote:
>
> >Was there any sort of outcome/resolution on the licensing issues?
> >
> >Is using a wiki legally feasible with TLDP content?
LDP doesn't own the copyright to any of the documentation it
distributes. It might own copyright to it's webpages which have no
authors listed. I would think it also owns the copyright to it's
manifesto which defines the organizations purposes, etc. LDP is of
course an informal organization, but even such organizations have some
legal standing. For example, I thought we owned the domain
linuxdoc.org.
Since each document has it's own license, then using it on a Wiki
without the author's permission is governed by that license. It's
also governed by copyright law. This means that if the license
permits modification and you put this doc on the Internet as a Wiki,
there needs to be notice that the author shown in the document title
page is not the sole author. Otherwise, it would imply that the
author wrote something that was actually added by an anonymous writer.
Copyright law doesn't allow incorrect attribution.
If it's licensed under GFDL, then any modifications must list the
author making the modifications. So such a license doesn't allow for
a wiki unless the people modifying it list their names.
> what I proposed was a voluntary athors system, in this case,
> the authors rules the licence. But there has been a huge
> dicsussion, it's probably better to loook at the list archive.
> jdd
David Lawyer
