discuss: licence problems


Previous by date: 29 Sep 2008 17:48:52 +0100 Re: licence problems, Rick Moen
Next by date: 29 Sep 2008 17:48:52 +0100 Re: HOWTO-related deletions on Wikipedia, jdd for http://tldp.org
Previous in thread: 29 Sep 2008 17:48:52 +0100 Re: licence problems, Rick Moen
Next in thread: 29 Sep 2008 17:48:52 +0100 Re: licence problems, jdd for http://tldp.org

Subject: Re: [discuss] licence problems
From: Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date: 29 Sep 2008 17:48:52 +0100
Message-Id: <20080929164850.GT1041@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####

(We're in agreement.  I'm just following up.)

> 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.

I believe Jean-Daniel was alleging that the mere _existence_ of the
(old) LDP Manifesto somehow proved an author grant of licensing to LDP
of some sort sufficient to permit derivative works.  My answer to him
was:  No, that is not a grant of permission by the _author_.

Indeed, as you say, to the extent that LDP carried out the policy in the
(old) manifesto, it would have avoided problems.  But it doesn't suffice
to just point to the manifesto and say "See?  We must already have
permission, since our policy says we insist on getting it."

> > > 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.

Right.


Previous by date: 29 Sep 2008 17:48:52 +0100 Re: licence problems, Rick Moen
Next by date: 29 Sep 2008 17:48:52 +0100 Re: HOWTO-related deletions on Wikipedia, jdd for http://tldp.org
Previous in thread: 29 Sep 2008 17:48:52 +0100 Re: licence problems, Rick Moen
Next in thread: 29 Sep 2008 17:48:52 +0100 Re: licence problems, jdd for http://tldp.org


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