discuss: licence problems
Subject:
Re: [discuss] licence problems
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
22 Sep 2008 12:48:14 +0100
Message-Id: <20080920072343.GE2343@davespc>
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 05:35:11PM +0200, jdd wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the licence problem have to be cleared before we can really work. I
> wrote a letter to Guylhem Aznar (he seems to work for FSF) asking help
> and add a line in the task list.
>
> *we need a lawyer* or a licence expert.
Well, Rick Moen and I know something about licenses.
>
> * I think we agree on the need to use GFDL on the wiki every time it's
> possible. We have to look closely at this (invariant??) and what it
> means, but given it's used for wikipedia, it should be good for us :-)
Why can't each wiki have it's own license so long as the license
allows modification? One could even write their own license that
prohibits modification without the author's consent but makes an exception
for the wiki where distribution of the modified wiki doc is not allowed
unless the author approves. In a way, having the modifications on the
wiki is distribution since anyone can get a copy but an author could
prohibit any other website from distributing the "unapproved draft"
doc which might contain a warning that it hasn't been approved by the
author yet. If I understand correctly, the present plans are something
like this where only the author can sign off on the modifications made
by others by adding a new line to the revision section of the doc.
But for most all the docs, modifications and redistribution may be
freely made without making them on the wiki. I don't think the
hypothetical "only-modify-on-wiki" license is necessarily a good idea
but it would be legal per the manifesto if someone wanted to do it and
if the wiki policy accepts it.
For LDP docs, there were not many cases known where someone modified
the doc and distributed it by other than the LDP. That's partly
because the LDP has a good distribution network of mirrors.
> * so when talking to the authors, asking for the right of setting they
> HOWTO on tghe wiki should be made clear: GFLD
You are likely aware that Debian, likely the only major distribution
that includes LDP docs in its distribution, considers GFDL to be
non-free unless the license explicit states that no invariant
(unmodifiable) sections exist. For the text of GFDL and the wikipedia
article on it see
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
Note that GFDL hasn't been changed in 6 years and it seems to require
that it be copied into each doc rather than just referenced with a url
link but I think a lot of docs don't adhere to this gfdl rule.
> * if the author *don't want* to change his licence and it's not GFDL, we
> have to clearly set the wiki page accordingly. We can even write a
> non-modifiable HOWTO on the wiki, on a read only page, with a companion
> discussion page write open.
>
> * is GPL usable on the (a) wiki?
There's been mention of making the next revision of GPL compatible
with GFDL in some way.
> * what can we do if a HWOTO's author is unreachable: probably as already
> said: make the HOWTO page readonly, but add a discussion page write
> enabled. (or move to "obsolete"...)
>
> jdd
David Lawyer
