discuss: Thread: Documentation licensing

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
####@####.####

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.

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/

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.

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.

 --- 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/

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

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.  
####@####.####

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 ]]

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