discuss: licence problems
Subject:
Re: [discuss] licence problems
From:
jdd ####@####.####
Date:
30 Sep 2008 07:45:25 +0100
Message-Id: <48E1CAD7.8000205@dodin.org>
Rick Moen a écrit :
> You write and then upload a HOWTO whose pages include your copyright
> statement and your explicit grant of permission under GPLv2.
agree. My concern is the usual case when nothing is said in the text
(no licence quoted). The copyright law say that is there is no quoted
licence, the complete property remains with the author.
I wonder if in this case, the small link on the bottom of the page to
the default licence have some value.
such problem can arise on a wiki, where much time can pass before
somebody notice there is something wrong. wiki is a "control after"
system.
> Is this correct? It seems to be your position.
as often, in the real world, we have cases that may be unclear,
obscure licence claim, may be hidden on the middle of a text. that's
why its better to have standards and don't accept other things.
the old (and today still active) manifesto says:
"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.
You can come up with your own license terms that satisfy these
conditions..."
so nearly any licence written by the author is allowed with very few
conditions (copy and distribute).
in a world where all doc are reviewed this can be a problem, but
manageable, on a wiki...
> archives would be one of them. Licensing can be and often is created by
> the conduct of parties, by oral statements, by written statements.
>
> What I'm balking at is the notion that a statement from someone _else_,
> other than the copyright owner establishes a right to that copyright
> owner's property even if it clearly conflicts with that owner's express
> wishes and intent.
good so the only problem could be if the document *clearly* define an
other licence, not if nothing is written?
> copyright law, not contract law -- would be the concept of a "contract
> of adhesion" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion),
> a "take it or leave it" contract,
interesting. will the mail exchange that exists most of the time
between discuss list and the author have value?
there are some documents in our collection where the licence is not
clear about the modification beeing allowed. if we find the authors
letters in the discuss archives may be we can clear the fact?
example: http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/text/3-Button-Mouse
the first HOWTO in the list: no licence
and right now (http://wiki.tldp.org/Page_Status) no author found
but a HOWTO that may be still usefull (or may not, just an example).
right now we probably could state it satisfy the manifesto (old one),
allowing copy, but not modification.
>> so they must be some criteria to know what is acceptable and what is
>> not.
>
> I agree. I've already made a suggestion to that effect that should
> cover almost all situations: It's on the wiki.
>
> If someone thinks he/she has an exception, that would be something that
> could be discussed individually.
very good.
thanks
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
http://valerie.dodin.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-eic8MSSfM
