[<<] [<] Page 6 of 7 [>] [>>] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From: Rick Moen ####@####.#### Date: 12 Apr 2004 15:25:11 -0000 Message-Id: <20040412152509.GA2020@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Glen Turner ####@####.#### [Acknowledging your point that you don't necessarily subscribe to the cited legal views. Just for the record:] > However, a fork of the HOWTO could lead to a document > of insufficient quality, one which reflected poorly > on our firm but which we would have no way to remedy. [...] > From their view, a forkable document was all downside. > For example, we could be sued for defamation, but could > offer no mitigation by modifying the currently-distributed > version of document. Since the document's entire revision history is on record in CVS, a complete record of whose wording is whose, down to the bit level, is accessible to any interested party: The defamation suit would last only long enough to show the judge LDP's Changelog. Moreover, if any subsequent modifier _did_ succeed in making your firm look bad, your firm might well have legal recourse under business tort law. (I would also expect that software-community social traditions and courtesy would tend to protect you and your firm: For example, tradition strongly favours the right of any prior author to, at a minimum, have his name removed from a work retroactively if he feels it now poorly reflects his original contribution to it.) > Interestingly, those legal advisors did "get" free software. > They just had a life-cycle view of copyrights -- they felt > that if we maintained a HOWTO then we should hold strict > control over the contents. And when we wished to cease > maintaining the HOWTO we should assign the copyright to > the LDP. Copyright title is indeed ultimate control and self-protection. Short of that, I've sometimes used a rather wildly creative concept invented by my friend (and current _Linux Journal_ editor) Don Marti, which he calls "reverse basstard copyleft": You may issue derivatives of this personal essay of mine, provided that you remove all attribution to me and assert your own authorship in all practical media. (You may not put words in my mouth, but you may reuse my words in any perverted way you like as long as you shoulder all the blame.) Reverse bastard copyleft isn't guaranteed to have any legal validity, but I offer it for whatever it's worth, as an interesting solution to the problem. -- Cheers, "Linux means never having to delete your love mail." Rick Moen -- Don Marti ####@####.#### | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From: Terrence Enger ####@####.#### Date: 12 Apr 2004 15:55:03 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20040412115448.00ec82e4@mail.look.ca> At 08:25 2004-04-12 -0700, Rick Moen wrote: >(I would also expect that software-community social traditions and >courtesy would tend to protect you and your firm: For example, >tradition strongly favours the right of any prior author to, at a >minimum, have his name removed from a work retroactively if he feels it >now poorly reflects his original contribution to it.) > [snip] > >Short of that, I've sometimes used a rather wildly creative concept >invented by my friend (and current _Linux Journal_ editor) Don Marti, >which he calls "reverse basstard copyleft": You may issue derivatives >of this personal essay of mine, provided that you remove all attribution >to me and assert your own authorship in all practical media. (You may >not put words in my mouth, but you may reuse my words in any perverted >way you like as long as you shoulder all the blame.) > >Reverse bastard copyleft isn't guaranteed to have any legal validity, >but I offer it for whatever it's worth, as an interesting solution to >the problem. A few days ago, motivated by this discussion, I took a look at the discussion of licence issues at the GNU and Debian web sites. I saw no specific reference to a restriction of this kind. The Debian site, however, does have a lot of other FAQs of the form "Aw, can't I add just such-and-such small restriction", and all of these are answered "No.". I continue to sulk and mutter unkind words under my breath. Just my grumpy C$0.02 worth. Terry. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From: Rahul ####@####.#### Date: 12 Apr 2004 18:52:31 -0000 Message-Id: <20040412185225.1815.qmail@web8001.mail.in.yahoo.com> Hi > Interestingly, those legal advisors did "get" free > software. > They just had a life-cycle view of copyrights -- > they felt > that if we maintained a HOWTO then we should hold > strict > control over the contents. And when we wished to > cease > maintaining the HOWTO we should assign the copyright > to > the LDP. LDP is not a legal entity like FSF which can hold copyrights. Assigning it to the LDP leader might be a valid alternative. If you want to have strict control it would be better to license it as such and host it yourself. > > From their view, a forkable document was all > downside. > For example, we could be sued for defamation, but > could > offer no mitigation by modifying the > currently-distributed > version of document. > Its pretty easy to see that you are not responsible for someone else modifications. The CVS makes that transparent enough. regards Rahul ________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From: Rick Moen ####@####.#### Date: 12 Apr 2004 20:15:56 -0000 Message-Id: <20040412201554.GH19884@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Terrence Enger ####@####.#### [Reverse bastard copyleft clause.] > A few days ago, motivated by this discussion, I took a look at the > discussion of licence issues at the GNU and Debian web sites. I saw > no specific reference to a restriction of this kind. The Debian site, > however, does have a lot of other FAQs of the form "Aw, can't I add > just such-and-such small restriction", and all of these are answered > "No.". I continue to sulk and mutter unkind words under my breath. Hmm. The FSF material I'm aware of clarifies that you may not alter the text of its licenses, those being copyrighted texts in themselves, and issued by FSF for no-charge public use without the right to fork. Separately, copyright law gives you both the right to attribution and the right to disclaim attribution -- but not (in itself) the right to require others to retroactively strip your author credit from copies of a work they've already received and used in accordance with your permission grant. Debian's (unofficial) DFSG FAQ lists sundry licence terms that, if applied to an otherwise DFSG-free work, renders it non-free. You might be referring to that. On my _own_ opinion/essay works to which I was referring, I wasn't "adding" a reverse bastard copyleft clause to some standard licence, but rather _using_ a reverse bastard copyleft clause _as_ the licence. So, it's a licence of my own devising, and (come to think of it) might just qualify as such as a free-documentation licence. I hesitate to suggest it for serious usage, though (as it might not stand up in court): I just thought list-members would find it interesting. To be slightly more specific, I'm talking about my infamous personal "rant" pages, here: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/ . As, so to speak, pure personal expression, I didn't want to give others the legal right to create offshoot pages elsewhere stating different views but still attaching my name to them. But at the same time, if people wanted to reuse some of the less tongue-in-cheek technical fragments on those pages, I figured that would be fine if I could safely allow it. Thus my bastard reverse copyleft grant. I also let people alternatively mirror the _whole_ page without modification and with attribution, if they wish. The exact licence text is a paragraph at the bottom of each page. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From: Terrence Enger ####@####.#### Date: 12 Apr 2004 21:12:43 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20040412171038.006d8e90@mail.look.ca> At 13:15 2004-04-12 -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > [Reverse bastard copyleft clause.] > > Debian's (unofficial) DFSG FAQ lists sundry licence terms that, if > applied to an otherwise DFSG-free work, renders it non-free. You might > be referring to that. Yes, my concern was with Debian policy rather than with law. Looking again, I see that The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) <http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>, point 4 "Integrity of The Author's Source Code", includes the sentence, "The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software." This is at least in the direction that I would like to see, even if it does not apply to the author's name. Of course, never having written anything which would be of general interest, I am just picking at a theoretical nuisance anyway. Terry. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From: Rahul ####@####.#### Date: 12 Apr 2004 21:19:39 -0000 Message-Id: <20040412211934.79998.qmail@web8006.mail.in.yahoo.com> --- Terrence Enger ####@####.#### wrote: > At 13:15 2004-04-12 -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > > [Reverse bastard copyleft clause.] > > > > Debian's (unofficial) DFSG FAQ lists sundry > licence terms that, if > > applied to an otherwise DFSG-free work, renders it > non-free. You might > > be referring to that. > > Yes, my concern was with Debian policy rather than > with law. > > Looking again, I see that The Debian Free Software > Guidelines (DFSG) > <http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>, > point 4 > "Integrity of The Author's Source Code", includes > the > sentence, "The license may require derived works to > carry a > different name or version number from the original > software." This is at least in the direction that I > would > like to see, even if it does not apply to the > author's name. > > Of course, never having written anything which would > be of > general interest, I am just picking at a theoretical > nuisance anyway. > > Terry. > You might find better answers in the debian lists. If there are problems a discussion is likely to find solutions regards Rahul ________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From: Mary Gardiner ####@####.#### Date: 12 Apr 2004 22:08:57 -0000 Message-Id: <20040412220941.GA16401@puzzling.org> On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 08:58:51PM +0930, Glen Turner wrote: > Interestingly, those legal advisors did "get" free software. They just > had a life-cycle view of copyrights -- they felt that if we maintained > a HOWTO then we should hold strict control over the contents. And when > we wished to cease maintaining the HOWTO we should assign the > copyright to the LDP. I thought copyright assignment to the LDP was impossible, as the LDP doesn't exist as any sort of legal entity. Is this correct? -Mary | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From: Rick Moen ####@####.#### Date: 12 Apr 2004 22:11:31 -0000 Message-Id: <20040412221128.GB2020@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Terrence Enger ####@####.#### > Yes, my concern was with Debian policy rather than with law. Ah. > Looking again, I see that The Debian Free Software > Guidelines (DFSG) > <http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>, point 4 > "Integrity of The Author's Source Code", includes the > sentence, "The license may require derived works to carry a > different name or version number from the original > software." This is at least in the direction that I would > like to see, even if it does not apply to the author's name. Yes, this bit of Debian Policy just acknowledges that it's OK per DFSG if the licence requires all third-party forks to be called something different. The Apache HTTPd licence has such a clause, for example. (You can maintain a fork of Apache HTTPd, but then you may not still call it Apache.) -- Cheers, Rick Moen Bu^so^stopu min per kulero. ####@####.#### | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From: Emma Jane Hogbin ####@####.#### Date: 12 Apr 2004 22:12:34 -0000 Message-Id: <20040412221052.GL4118@smeagol> On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 08:09:41AM +1000, Mary Gardiner wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 08:58:51PM +0930, Glen Turner wrote: > > Interestingly, those legal advisors did "get" free software. They just > > had a life-cycle view of copyrights -- they felt that if we maintained > > a HOWTO then we should hold strict control over the contents. And when > > we wished to cease maintaining the HOWTO we should assign the > > copyright to the LDP. > > I thought copyright assignment to the LDP was impossible, as the LDP > doesn't exist as any sort of legal entity. Is this correct? Correct. Unless someone else knows explicitly otherwise... -- Emma Jane Hogbin [[ 416 417 2868 ][ www.xtrinsic.com ]] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From: "Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.#### Date: 13 Apr 2004 00:26:02 -0000 Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040412182451.02416420@mail.simpaticus.com> At 15:10 4/12/2004, Terrence Enger wrote: >Yes, my concern was with Debian policy rather than with law. Just out of curiosity, why is it that everyone cares so much about Debian guidelines? People act as though not abiding by Debian rules would get you fined and thrown in jail sometimes... Cheers, -- Rodolfo J. Paiz ####@####.#### http://www.simpaticus.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[<<] [<] Page 6 of 7 [>] [>>] |