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

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.

But if this requirement is put in the manifesto, I think there should
be at least one license that provides for this.  Otherwise the author
is faced with the job of writing his own license and then there's the
problem of classifying such a license.  It's desirable to keep the
number of licenses to a minimum if feasible.

So I'm proposing that a no-modify option to LDP's the Boilerplate
License be included with it, to be effective only if the author
selects this option:  Modification would be prohibited unless the
author can't be located.  Furthermore, while LDP would permit this
option we would not encourage it as is currently stated in the
manifesto: "It is not required that the documents be modifiable, but
it is encouraged."  

Then for licenses that don't meet the new manifesto requirement, we
could contact the authors and suggest that they change their license.
What to do with the docs that remain in violation of the new manifesto
is a question to be decided later since it depends on just what they
are.  They might be all obsolete, since I think that most authors
who now don't allow modification would be willing to allow
modification if they can't be located.

So what I'm proposing is modifying both the Boilerplate License and
the Manifesto for the purpose of allowing modification to documents
in all cases where the author can't be located.

			David Lawyer

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 10:25, David Lawyer wrote:
> 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.

Wording a legally acceptable definition of what constitutes a reasonable 
effort and appropriate procedure for attempting to locate an author 
(and evidencing thereof) is a potential can of worms. It risks being 
perceived as too weak by protective authors or too dangerous by 
potential maintainers (or both).

Also, what happens when this hypothetical clause is invoked? Does the 
new maintainer assume the original author's modification rights? Does 
he share them with the original author? Do the rights become 
non-exclusive?

What happens when a document with such a license is created by several 
authors and some but not all are unreachable? What are the powers of 
the remaining author(s) to withhold rights or invoke the suggested 
clause?

All these (and other) legal considerations aside, I think it would serve 
to disguise the complications of read-only works and unduly entice some 
authors to choose a non-free licence. I appreciate that the intention 
is to encourage authors who would not otherwise write Free 
documentation to allow their works to be maintained, but I fear it 
would also allure some Free documentation authors with the promise of 
more individual control.

-- 
Alex Nordstrom
http://lx.n3.net/
Please do not CC me in followups;
I am subscribed to the tldp discussion list.