Subject:
Re: [discuss] licence problems
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
26 Sep 2008 01:04:54 +0100
Message-Id: <20080926000451.GA1041@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Jean-Daniel Dodin ####@####.####
> let me be more precise.
> the work ONE have three parts, A, B, C.
> He have a dual licence G and F.
OK, so, if I understand correctly, you're saying that a work that has
three parts is available in its entirety under the recipient's choice of
either licence G or licence F.
What that means, very specifically, is that if a third party ever wishes
to exercise a right normally reserved to the copyright holder (e.g.,
redistribution or creation/distribution of derivative works), then the
third party must _either_ satisfy the conditions of licence G, _or_
satisfy the conditions of licence F.
> one people find an error in the part A, copy the entire document,
> correct A and want to use licence G, this gives document TWO
No, you have that wrong.
The upstream creator specified that his work shall be available under
the terms of either licence G or licence F. Therefore, those conditions
continue to apply to his copyright interest in all subsequent downstream
copies and derivative works. Why? Because only the upstream author has
legal title to the upstream work. The downstream recipient _cannot_
lawfully decide that he's no longer willing to pass along the right to
use the upstream content under licence F. Because it's not his property.
> an other people find an error in the part C, copy the entire document
> ONE and correct C, then choose licence F, this gives document THREE
Again, no. You have mistakenly imputed to the downstream recipient a
property right to which he has no entitlement: The downstream recipient
has no right to alter terms the upstream author has specified for his
work.
> how can we have a document with no error at all?
The upstream maintainer should decline to accept changes offered on any
terms not to his liking. In the case you've discussed, that upstream
author apparently likes to give people the right to satisfy their choice
of licences G or F. Therefore, he'll undoubtedly want to accept only
patches under licensing regime "recipient's choice of licences G or F",
and decline any patches under any licence that is more restrictive on
the user. He's _probably_ want, for simplicity's sake, to accept only
patches offered under the same licensing terms as his original work.
That's how things are done, and are kept simple.
Now, if you're unhappy with the notion of LDP documents ever permitting
multiple licences, then you should be unhappy with the present situation
of a particular licence being urged on contributors, too. Here's yet
another illustration, to show why:
Let's suppose you write a four-section HOWTO and post it to LDP's wiki
and then to its document collection, specifying "GFDL 1.2 with no
invariant sections and no front-cover or back-cover texts" as your
licence. I now duplicate your HOWTO onto my Web site. I append
brand-new section #5 of my own devising onto my copy of your HOWTO, and
mark it explicitly as available under the newer BSD licence ("Section 5
is Copyright (c) 2008 Rick Moen and may be used under the conditions of
the newer BSD licence").
I have now created a derivative work that uses your licence for sections
1-4, and my licence for section 5 -- despite your preference (within
this example) for GFDL only. Have I commited copyright violation? No.
I have obeyed your licence terms, and my addendum's presence on my copy
doesn't infringe your terms of use. (New-BSD's status as a permissive
licence prevents it from violating GFDL's copyright clause covering
derivative works.)
Can you accept back my section #5 addendum for your master copy and
claim that "GFDL 1.2 with no invariant sections and no front-cover or
back-cover texts" is the applicable licence? No, you cannot lawfully do
so -- because it's my creation, and I, not you, get to decide what
conditions apply to it. Copyright law requires you to retain my
copyright notice and terms of use, when/if you borrow my work.
You would _probably_, for simplicity's sake, elect to not accept my
patch, or accept it only if I am willing to let you have it under GFDL
terms instead of new-BSD.
When I say "you should be unhappy", I am being somewhat ironic: My
point is that you _cannot prevent_ creation of derivative works with
(compatible) different licensing on added elements. So, there's no use
wasting your time being alarmed at the possibility, since there's
nothing you can do to prevent it, anyway. All you can do is make your
own licensing clear, and accept back only patches whose licensing you
consider OK.
