discuss: Thread: Documentation licensing

Hi, everyone.

After briefly skimming the recent threads on document licensing
issues, a general issue comes to mind.

I'm sure someone has a simple answer that demonstrates the needs met
by the current system rather than another, but why exactly are the
copyrights of HOWTOs and other documents not simply signed over to the
LDP?

The LDP could make modifications to documents where the original
author has disappeared (a frequent issue, it seems) and could have its
own policy for the republishing of documents which would be consistent
for everything in the LDP.  The Debian issue could have been solved
quickly and easily.  Alternatively, could LDP documents fall under
work-for-hire doctrine?

In short, is this at all a valid answer to to these problems?  No
flames, please. It's just a question.

-- 
Chris Riddoch       | epistemological
####@####.#### | humility

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 11:32:13AM -0600, Chris Riddoch wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
> 
> After briefly skimming the recent threads on document licensing
> issues, a general issue comes to mind.
> 
> I'm sure someone has a simple answer that demonstrates the needs met
> by the current system rather than another, but why exactly are the
> copyrights of HOWTOs and other documents not simply signed over to the
> LDP?

We do not yet have any legal entity, so cannot own copyright. Once we
have a legal organization set up, which we are working on, then we
will have to discuss it as a policy issue.

IMO, all we need is the doc to be under a Free license, but if the
author wants to give us copyright that would be also okay.

-- 
David C. Merrill                         http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                   ####@####.####
Lead Developer                                 http://www.tldp.org

Dying in America
At the end of the millennium
We're dying in America
To come into our own
And when you're dying in America
At the end of the millennium
You're not alone

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 11:32:13AM -0600, Chris Riddoch wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
> 
> After briefly skimming the recent threads on document licensing
> issues, a general issue comes to mind.
> 
> I'm sure someone has a simple answer that demonstrates the needs met
> by the current system rather than another, but why exactly are the
> copyrights of HOWTOs and other documents not simply signed over to the
> LDP?

Even if the LDP were a legal entity and could own copyrights, there
might still be some danger if LDP owned the copyrights.  Suppose LDP
was taken over by people that wanted to commercialize on documentation
and sell it?  Takeovers can be insidious where people volunteer to help
the LDP, pretending to support free software, and then reveal their true
intentions and commercialize it.  So free documentation needs to have a
free license to keep it free.  Even in this case, the copyright owner
can always change the license on a new version.  The old version remains
under it's original license.

Also free documentation needs a license to allow copying and
distribution of it.  Otherwise it would need to be public domain in
order to be able to copy and distribute it.  The problem with public
domain is that anyone can modify it and then copyright the modified work
with no license at all.

			David Lawyer

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 01:55:02PM -0700, David Lawyer wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 11:32:13AM -0600, Chris Riddoch wrote:
> > Hi, everyone.
> > 
> > After briefly skimming the recent threads on document licensing
> > issues, a general issue comes to mind.
> > 
> > I'm sure someone has a simple answer that demonstrates the needs met
> > by the current system rather than another, but why exactly are the
> > copyrights of HOWTOs and other documents not simply signed over to the
> > LDP?
> 
> Even if the LDP were a legal entity and could own copyrights, there
> might still be some danger if LDP owned the copyrights.  Suppose LDP
> was taken over by people that wanted to commercialize on documentation
> and sell it?  Takeovers can be insidious where people volunteer to help
> the LDP, pretending to support free software, and then reveal their true
> intentions and commercialize it.  So free documentation needs to have a
> free license to keep it free.  Even in this case, the copyright owner
> can always change the license on a new version.  The old version remains
> under it's original license.

That is a good point, David, and I hadn't thought of it. If an author
wants to reassign copyright to someone who can be always counted on to
keep it Free, they might consider the FSF, though.

And honestly I do not see the LDP ever commercializing anything for
profit. Yes, a random individual could work their way in without
showing their true colors, but it would take a majority of the LDP
board to do such a thing, and we all know each other well enough that
we should be comfortable the majority is strongly opposed to such
things.

Now, selling CDs for $5.00 for the LDP, which can also be downloaded
for free, I would be fine with. Selling things is not wrong, even if
they are Free! But turning it proprietary in the licensing I would
never support. Nor would the board of the LDP, Inc., I am sure.

-- 
David C. Merrill                         http://www.lupercalia.net
Linux Documentation Project                   ####@####.####
Lead Developer                                 http://www.tldp.org

The opposite of War isn't Peace. It's Creation!
	-- RENT

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 01:26:27PM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 11:32:13AM -0600, Chris Riddoch wrote:
> > Hi, everyone.
> > 
> > After briefly skimming the recent threads on document licensing
> > issues, a general issue comes to mind.
> > 
> > I'm sure someone has a simple answer that demonstrates the needs met
> > by the current system rather than another, but why exactly are the
> > copyrights of HOWTOs and other documents not simply signed over to the
> > LDP?
> 
> We do not yet have any legal entity, so cannot own copyright. Once we
> have a legal organization set up, which we are working on, then we
> will have to discuss it as a policy issue.

As I understand the law (not being an attorney), the LDP is an
"unincorporated association", and is perfectly capable of holding
copyrights and otherwise acting as a legal entity.

Perhaps the FSF could suggest an attorney to deal with these issues?

-- 

Charles Curley                  /"\    ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software       \ /    Respect for open standards
and/or web pages?                X     No HTML/RTF in email
http://w3.trib.com/~ccurley     / \    No M$ Word docs in email