discuss: licence problems


Previous by date: 29 Sep 2008 22:34:08 +0100 Re: licence problems, Rick Moen
Next by date: 29 Sep 2008 22:34:08 +0100 Re: licence problems, Rick Moen
Previous in thread: 29 Sep 2008 22:34:08 +0100 Re: licence problems, Rick Moen
Next in thread: 29 Sep 2008 22:34:08 +0100 Re: licence problems, Rick Moen

Subject: Re: [discuss] licence problems
From: jdd ####@####.####
Date: 29 Sep 2008 22:34:08 +0100
Message-Id: <48E149A4.9030005@dodin.org>

Rick Moen a écrit :

> you're ascribing some special importance to the "LDP Wiki Default
> Licence"?  (See below.)  It's difficult to say, but this issue should
> not be so difficult to grasp.

yes and no.

if you read the licence page, you will see:

"All LDP Authors are urged to use this default licence. To do so, use
the HOWTO Template. "

and the HOWTOTemplate include the licence summary (I hope it will not
be mandatory to copy the hole licence text, because it whould be
really boring), in hope the authors will keep it or change it for
someting acceptable.

> Nothing prevents someone from posting a work to Wikipedia under the
> author's choice of licensing terms.  The mere fact that Wikipeidia
> specifies a default licence _in no way_ determines what permission a
> contributor grants.

interesting affirmation. Nearly any present web site use such wording.
Do you know of any court claim on this subject?

> All of the above remarks also apply equally to LDP, its wiki, and the 
> "LDP Wiki Default Licence".

yes and no. may be you are right. the sentence

"On any LDP Web site page where no other licence applies expressly,
the following applies: "

may have no value

and in fact I wonder if it makes sense. But if it don't same applies
to most of the web space. for example, do we have any right to
publish, store, archive this mailing list? Many implied licences are
used all around the net, making the web alive :-).

> real-world documentation permits -- and, in particular, seem to be in an
> awful hurry to decree that LDP should not accept documents under
> reasonable free licences that don't meet your standards of simplicity.

why do you keep repeting things obviously wrong. *I* don't "decree"
anything. Only propose to discuss non standard things (as was always
done).

what should we do if somebody set in the wiki a document with non free
licence? refuse it? so they must be some criteria to know what is
acceptable and what is not. I certainly wont remove a document without
the community request.

jdd

-- 
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-eic8MSSfM

Previous by date: 29 Sep 2008 22:34:08 +0100 Re: licence problems, Rick Moen
Next by date: 29 Sep 2008 22:34:08 +0100 Re: licence problems, Rick Moen
Previous in thread: 29 Sep 2008 22:34:08 +0100 Re: licence problems, Rick Moen
Next in thread: 29 Sep 2008 22:34:08 +0100 Re: licence problems, Rick Moen


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