discuss: licence problems


Previous by date: 29 Sep 2008 08:05:02 +0100 Re: HOWTO-related deletions on Wikipedia, jdd
Next by date: 29 Sep 2008 08:05:02 +0100 Re: HOWTO-related deletions on Wikipedia, jdd for http://tldp.org
Previous in thread: 29 Sep 2008 08:05:02 +0100 Re: licence problems, jdd
Next in thread: 29 Sep 2008 08:05:02 +0100 Re: licence problems, jdd

Subject: Re: [discuss] licence problems
From: David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date: 29 Sep 2008 08:05:02 +0100
Message-Id: <20080929070236.GK17357@davespc>

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 07:48:46PM +0200, jdd wrote:
> Rick Moen a ?crit :
> > Quoting Jean-Daniel Dodin ####@####.####
> > 
> >> in fact the old manifesto only state:
> >>
> >> "Anyone may copy and distribute (sell or give away) LDP documents (or
> >> other LDP works) in any media and/or format. No fees are required to
> >> be paid to the authors. It is not required that the documents be
> >> modifiable, but it is encouraged. "
> > 
> > So, imagine an LDP author hauling you into court, suing you for
> > copyright infringement.  You hand the judge a copy of the (old) LDP
> > manifesto, and say "See!  We _do_ have the right to make derivatives."
> > The plaintiff responds, "I never granted that permission.  It might be
> > LDP's view that 'anyone may copy and distribute', but it's not mine, and
> > this is my work we're talking about."

The effect of the manifesto is that the LDP will not accept any doc
that fails to have a license that allows anyone to copy and distribute
LDP documents.  Thus the above scenario should never happen because
LDP would have never accepted this document into the LDP collection
since the author failed to grant permission to copy and distribute.

> > 
> > What's your response?  Other than to lose, get an injunction against
> > you, and possibly pay damages?  ;->
> 
> my answer is that the authors was the one that asked to be included in
> LDP documents, so doing he accepts the LDP policy.

I don't think so, unless LDP has assured itself that the author read
this part of the Manifesto (which is in the Author Guide, etc.).  LDP
is supposed to check the licences of all docs to insure they conform
to the Manifesto, including removal of any doc that was accepted by
mistake.

> anyway the above LDP statement don't speaks of derivatives work.

Not explicitly.  But modification is a derivative work, and most
derivative works could be construed as modifications.  Anyway, if the
license prohibits derivative works then that's that.  The license
rules.

			David Lawyer

Previous by date: 29 Sep 2008 08:05:02 +0100 Re: HOWTO-related deletions on Wikipedia, jdd
Next by date: 29 Sep 2008 08:05:02 +0100 Re: HOWTO-related deletions on Wikipedia, jdd for http://tldp.org
Previous in thread: 29 Sep 2008 08:05:02 +0100 Re: licence problems, jdd
Next in thread: 29 Sep 2008 08:05:02 +0100 Re: licence problems, jdd


  ©The Linux Documentation Project, 2014. Listserver maintained by dr Serge Victor on ibiblio.org servers. See current spam statz.