discuss: Thread: Proposal for revised license and license requirements.

On 6/6/05, David Lawyer ####@####.#### wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 07:25:15PM -0700, David Lawyer wrote:

> There are some points in favor of making a document non-modifiable.
> Non-modifiable means that you can modify it, provided you have the author's
> permission.  Thus the author can try to prevent modification that only
> degrades the document: adding advertising to it, intentionally adding
> untrue statements, etc.  Such  degradations have actually happened.
> When the author wants to turn it over to someone else, they can select
> who that person will be (if there is more than one volunteer).

This is a huge sacrifice of freedom for very little gain.
So what if someone can degrade a copy of the document, the
degraded version would surely not prevail in the community if it were 
truly degraded, correct?

Would the TLDP, Debian, whatever, other distributors even accept some 
random person's submission of a revision to add a popup ad to a 
document?  I hope not.

The freedom to modify would easily ensure that the degradation could be
reversed, i.e. the advertisements could be removed, and any 
improvements that went along side the addition of advertising therefore
could be used as well.

> Non-free documentation is free to use (in a sense) to create improved
> documentation, unlike non-free software which can't be used to create
> improved software.  To use non-free documentation, you simply read it

Non-free software could be used to create improved software.
If the source is not available, then how it works can be examined.
If the source is available, then it could be studied and used to develop new
software following the same core principles, or at least through learning
of where its design was bad or good.

I don't see that documentation is significantly different in regards to the
issue of freedom.

Partly: the whole point of having freedom is that you would not need to
rewrite it yourself to make improvements and share modified versions 
with others freely.

Restrict modification, and you have something that is not free at all.

> and use what you learn plus what you learn from other sources to
> write improved documentation.  So non-free documentation is not a big
> stumbling block to improvement like non-free software is.  Of course,

They are both big stumbling blocks.   Non-free documentation means 
that the person who happened to author that document gets the
last word.. it means the documentation can't be readily updated.

It means the documenting/communication process/flow of information
is slowed down more than it should be.

> it may be easier to create improved documentation from freely
> modifiable documents by just copying parts of it.  You can't do this
> with non-free.  But if you have to rewrite the whole thing from
> scratch (the case for non-free) then the result may be better.

In practice that likely means the improvement doesn't happen.

Fixing a broken document or adapting the documentation for one free software
product to consider a derivative/similar product is considerably easier than 
rewriting a document.

> This is needed.  I think that free documentation means no advertising,
> (including pop-up ads, etc.) and that modifications should be
> improvements rather than degradations.  This implies that restrictions

Free documentation means at least the right to modify, and the right to share
freely.

Which includes the right to include advertising, sell copies, whatever.
Also, the right to remove advertising.


Consider "Free Software"... that has nothing to do with having
software that is free from spyware, advertising, or other annoyances.

These are desirable qualities, but you can't deny these privileges
without removing freedoms that are extremely desirable.

> on modification and display are needed to make it truly free.  It's
> freedom for the reader to not have to be annoyed by ads and the
> freedom to not read untrue statements intentionally put into the
> document (not just honest mistakes).

These are conveniences, not freedoms.

If the reader has freedom to modify the document, then they may use
a popup blocker, remove the ads by hand, or by any method of choice.

I suppose if they are restricted from modifying, and the author includes
popups, then they aren't free to use a popup blocker.

There's no freedom from reading untrue statements anymore than there
is freedom from running buggy code.

Of course it is reasonable that modifiers have to include prominent notice
of their modifications and pointers to the official document.

> requirements are supposed to be short and simple.  But I think that
> most authors that don't maintain their doc would be willing to turn it
> over to someone who is able to maintain it.

And what about those that don't or just disappear?

In principle, if you let them say you can't modify it, then you can't.
Even if one would guess that they don't mind...

What's worse than listing complex requirements is going with vague suppositions
about what you think they might like to allow.  

One thing that should not be assumed is that it will be possible to 
actually contact the author and get them to give permission to
the new maintainer
(if they have disappeared, then they won't).

-- 
-Mysid

(Speaking for myself, not LDP.)

Quoting Mysid ####@####.####

> This is a huge sacrifice of freedom for very little gain.
[...]

You're repeating yourself, a great deal.  That is getting tiresome.

We understand the advantages (and drawbacks) of genuinely free
documentation.  We also know the reluctance of many authors to use it:  
It can be difficult to grant that degree of permission to modify, on
something that seems to reflect personally on one's self.  I sometimes
use non-free licensing on my writings, for that reason.  Quoting
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/ (my personal "FAQ" or "rants" page):

    Copyright (C) 1995-2005 by Rick Moen. Verbatim copying,
    distribution, and display of this entire article (page) are
    permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
    Alternatively, you may create derivative works of any sort for any
    purpose, provided your versions contain no attribution to me, and
    that you assert your own authorship (and not mine) in every
    practical medium.

Anyhow, the repeated attempts to convince the LDP that free licensing on
documentation is A Good Thing are a waste of your time and everyone
else's.  Pretty much everyone agrees.  Move on, please.

> I don't see that documentation is significantly different in regards to the
> issue of freedom.

You appear unwilling to recognise real-world differences of kind (access
to preferred form) and of scale (infrequency of derivative-work issues,
smaller sizes and time commitments compared to typical software cases).
OK, you decline to acknowledge the point.  That's not a crime.  Move on,
please.

David Lawyer wrote:

> PS: This topic has been discussed previously, but no resoluting has
> ever been reached.
> 
> While I support the right of an author (in some cases) to not allow
> modification without the author's consent, what about the case where
> the document needs revision and author can't be located?  I think our
> manifesto needs to be changed to require that any license must allow
> modification if the author can't be located after searching on the
> Internet.


I understand the problems and agree on the problems with advertising
also mentioned earlier. License and copyright discussion never seem
to resolve. Perhaps that is a more general rule, Debian has also been
troubled by this and no resolution in sight there either.

Instead I would like to apply the book metaphor as a solution: the
author writes the contents and the publisher takes care of the
covers, blurb, distribution and more, somewhat how TLDP operates.
So when a document needs updates but the author cannot be located,
would it then be possible for TLDP, like a publisher, to attach an
errata sheet with the original document?

TLDP will hopefully soon implement the categorising which also is
part of the attachment to the document. A simple front cover would
be useful, with features like
  - status of document (Guide/HOWTO, recent/old, new/established...)
  - status of author (active, inactive, whereabouts not known)
  - classifications and categories
  - related documents
  - ranking, if we feel it would not be too controversial.
  - links to document in several formats (HTML, PDF, ...)
  - links for sending in feedback
  - errata/comments, possibly Wiki-comments

Hopefully this solution will let us avoid changing the license.


Regards,
    Stein Gjoen

On Tuesday 14 June 2005 03:53, Stein Gjoen wrote:
> David Lawyer wrote:
> > PS: This topic has been discussed previously, but no
> > resoluting has ever been reached.
> >
> > While I support the right of an author (in some cases) to
> > not allow modification without the author's consent, what
> > about the case where the document needs revision and author
> > can't be located?  I think our manifesto needs to be changed
> > to require that any license must allow modification if the
> > author can't be located after searching on the Internet.
>
> I understand the problems and agree on the problems with
> advertising also mentioned earlier. License and copyright
> discussion never seem to resolve. 

Mark Twain is alleged to have said, "When there is a copyright 
law to be made, the idiots gather." (Including Twain, who argued 
for copyright in perpetuity.)

> Perhaps that is a more 
> general rule, Debian has also been troubled by this and no
> resolution in sight there either.

It is perfectly within the rights of TLDP, as publisher, to offer 
a contract or license that says that nobody can change _this 
version_ of a document, but that the community is entirely free 
to use anything in it in creating a new version, clearly 
identified as such, when needed. 

I don't see why we would need to allow J. Random Bozo to make and 
publish changes to a HOWTO (identifying it as his, and not a 
TLDP HOWTO), but I also don't see why we would need to forbid 
it. There is nothing to stop him writing an addendum or a patch 
file and making that available to all. As far as I can see, it 
suffices for our purposes that new official versions have to go 
through the same publication and review process as the old ones, 
or whatever the community has decided to change the process to.

The point I am trying to make seems to be that the license is not 
the only protection for TLDP documents; TLDP itself is the other 
essential protection, for as long as we feel like keeping it up 
ourselves, or can encourage others to continue to do so.
-- 
Edward Cherlin, Simputer Evangelist
Encore Technologies (S) Pte. Ltd.
The Village Information Society
http://cherlin.blogspot.com

On 6/6/05, David Lawyer ####@####.#### wrote:

> There are some points in favor of making a document non-modifiable.
> Non-modifiable means that you can modify it, provided you have the author's
> permission.  Thus the author can try to prevent modification that only
> degrades the document: adding advertising to it, intentionally adding
> untrue statements, etc.  Such  degradations have actually happened.

This assumes authors forever remain altruistic, that the only concern is
from others, and yes, that it really matters.

What happens when an author himself/herself decides they
would like to capitalize on the article and stick advertising in it?

Now suddenly the no-modification clause actually prevents removal
of the advertising, and TLDP has to either keep their popup ad or
chunk the article.

Or they could intentionally deny the community ability to update their
lengthy Howto while publicizing some book on the subject that they
have just finished / are trying to sell.  

There is the possibility of some motive to want to 'take their work back'
after supposedly publishing it as a free document.

What best protects the community?  The authors of an article are 
not the only stakeholders.  

Yeah, so they wrote an article: chances are others could have written
it too...  but person Xyz got there first, so they've effectively gathered 
exclusive control of the topic.

Whereas completely replacing an article takes enough time and resources
(that could have been used making other nice articles) to matter, which
would be extremely unfortunate if the article would not need to be rewritten
and if not for some license restriction, a few added sections and some
minor revisions would have sufficed.

-- 
-Mysid

Quoting Edward Cherlin ####@####.####

> It is perfectly within the rights of TLDP, as publisher, to offer 
> a contract or license that says that nobody can change _this 
> version_ of a document, but that the community is entirely free 
> to use anything in it in creating a new version, clearly 
> identified as such, when needed. 

Edward, two problems:  

1.  LDP has no legal existence as a "person".   This would require
    re-forming as a corporation or some other legal entity.
2.  Even if it did, unlike the sort of "publisher" you envision, 
    LDP doesn't gain copyright title under contract, and so would
    have no standing to enforce document licence terms.

> 

> 1.  LDP has no legal existence as a "person".   This would require
>     re-forming as a corporation or some other legal entity.
> 2.  Even if it did, unlike the sort of "publisher" you envision,
>     LDP doesn't gain copyright title under contract, and so would
>     have no standing to enforce document licence terms.

To maintain control of what it serves it shouldn't need to be.

Presumably people other than those running the LDP aren't able to 
just stick whatever tarballs they like on the LDP servers and have
them distributed as "LDP documents".

... ... the LDP ought to be perfectly technically capable of stopping
itself from putting out modified documents if it really doesn't want to.

Someone could put out a document on their own server and claim it's
an LDP document, but then they are just lying....[hmm, and they could
do that anyways]

-- 
-Mysid

On Friday 17 June 2005 00:01, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Edward Cherlin ####@####.####
> > It is perfectly within the rights of TLDP, as publisher, to
> > offer a contract or license that says that nobody can change
> > _this version_ of a document, but that the community is
> > entirely free to use anything in it in creating a new
> > version, clearly identified as such, when needed.
>
> Edward, two problems:
>
> 1.  LDP has no legal existence as a "person".   This would
> require re-forming as a corporation or some other legal
> entity. 

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.

> 2.  Even if it did, unlike the sort of "publisher" you 
> envision, 

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.

> LDP doesn't gain copyright title under contract,  

Copyright title is almost irrelevant in publishing. Somebody has 
to have it, but it hardly matters who as long as the parties 
agree on their rights as enumerated in contracts and licenses. 
We are discussing a license that the author can use, so no issue 
of LDP ownership arises.

> and 
> so would have no standing to enforce document licence terms.

How do we manage our document licenses today? Who enforces them? 
How?

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. Then the author of the new version has 
control of the new material in that version.

The idea is for authors to give LDP the essential permission to 
make new versions in advance, so that we don't have the issue of 
how diligently to track down authors of abandoned documents, and 
we can't be stymied in creating new versions by an intransigent 
author.

Perhaps some authors would be content if the license said no 
changes without LDP permission. Can we ask whoever brought up 
the original idea?
-- 
Edward Cherlin, Simputer Evangelist
Encore Technologies (S) Pte. Ltd.
The Village Information Society
http://cherlin.blogspot.com

Hi

>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. Then the author of the new version has 
>control of the new material in that version.
>
>The idea is for authors to give LDP the essential permission to 
>make new versions in advance, so that we don't have the issue of 
>how diligently to track down authors of abandoned documents, and 
>we can't be stymied in creating new versions by an intransigent 
>author.
>
>Perhaps some authors would be content if the license said no 
>changes without LDP permission. Can we ask whoever brought up 
>the original idea?
>  
>
Personally I think we should just call the creative commons attribute 
share like license the LDP recommended one. The problem with other 
ideas  is that noone in this list a lawyer. Who is going to draft this 
license and review it to make sure that its legally strong? (aka show me 
the code)

regards
Rahul

Quoting Mysid ####@####.####

> To maintain control of what it serves it shouldn't need to be.

You seem to be playing games with words.

> Presumably people other than those running the LDP aren't able to 
> just stick whatever tarballs they like on the LDP servers and have
> them distributed as "LDP documents".

And here, you seem to be trying to argue with some position I have not
stated and do not hold.

Edward's post was:

    It is perfectly within the rights of TLDP, as publisher, to offer
    a contract or license that says that nobody can change _this
    version_ of a document, but that the community is entirely free
    to use anything in it in creating a new version, clearly
    identified as such, when needed.

I read Edward's use of the words "publisher" and "offer" as
contemplating LDP enforcing its wishes as a party with legal standing.
If that's not what he intended, I'm sure he can clarify.