discuss: Thread: Would like to maintain Linux Networking Howto

Hello, 
Linux Networking Howto is currently in unmaintained status:
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/NET3-4-HOWTO.html

I started updating it at Wikibooks and would like to maintain the document.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Linux_Networking_How-To

Maintainership is important to me, if I have to keep the how-to at Wikibooks
site, the document needs to be under GNU Free Documentation License, than under
GPL (which it is currently under).

Though the choice of wikibooks to maintain was based on my confort level, I
would like to keep the updated copies at TLDP as well.

Please let me know your views and how should I proceed?

Thanks,
Senthil



-- 
O.R.Senthil Kumaran
http://uthcode.sarovar.org

O.R.Senthil Kumaran a écrit :
> Hello, 
> Linux Networking Howto is currently in unmaintained status:
> http://tldp.org/HOWTO/NET3-4-HOWTO.html
> 
> I started updating it at Wikibooks and would like to maintain the document.

good, thanks

> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Linux_Networking_How-To
> 
> Maintainership is important to me, if I have to keep the how-to at Wikibooks
> site, the document needs to be under GNU Free Documentation License, than under
> GPL (which it is currently under).

no problem for *us*

> 
> Though the choice of wikibooks to maintain was based on my confort level, I
> would like to keep the updated copies at TLDP as well.
> 
> Please let me know your views and how should I proceed?

* try to contact Alessandro Rubini (former maintainer) if you can, to 
ask him. If the new HOWXTO is nearly the same as the old one, it's 
necessary, if it's significantly different it's not. It's important 
specially for the licence change;

* Please host the HOWTO at http://wiki.tldp.org

the LDP is now in a special moment, we are re-organising our workflow, 
so don't worry if all is not always as smooth as expected :-)

GFDL is the best choice for us, may be somebody can explain us if the 
change GPL->is possible easily

jdd

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

jdd a écrit :

> * try to contact Alessandro Rubini (former maintainer) 

probably

####@####.####

jdd
-- 
jdd for the Linux Documentation Project
http://wiki.tldp.org
http://www.dodin.net

Thank you very much for the quick reply, Mr. Rubini. I shall contact Terry
Dawson regarding this.

One of the points which is worth noticing for the TLDP is the following.

> >>  GFDL is the best choice for us, may be somebody can explain us if
> >>  the change GPL->is possible easily
> 
> No. It is not easy. The copyright holders (_all_ the copytight
> holders) should agree to re-release under a different license. GPL and
> GFDL are incompatible licenses, so no automatic conversion is
> possibile in either direction -- that's why it's so bad that gnu
> documents are not gpl any more (imho).
> 

Which makes it clear, that None of the TLDP documents which are GPL Licensed
can be made into a wikibook and hosted en.wikibooks.org, unless all the authors
agree to releasing the document under GFDL.

Thats should be okay. TLDP itself is undergoing certain changes to port the
documents to wiki.tldp.org and I am assuming that all the licenses will remain
intact and this wiki does not have any restrictions with respect to Licenses.

To TLDP list:
I just re-visited wiki.tldp.org and found that it has undergone a wonderful
change. Few months ago, it was in a bad shape (with Spams) and I decided upon
on wikibooks.org site. Now I feel that it is better to migrate all the TLDP
Documents to wiki.tldp.org and expose it to the world.


Thank you,
Senthil

 


* scriptor Alessandro Rubini, explico 

> 
> Hello Senthil.
> 
> I added Terry Dawson in Cc, hoping at least one of the addresses I got
> is still working (hi Terry).
> 
> 
> > You are mentioned as the Maintainer of
> > http://tldp.org/HOWTO/NET3-4-HOWTO.html
> 
> Well, I have been. Ages ago. I worked on it a few months, then time
> disappeared (it happens, oh so often...) and the document began stagnating.
> 
> I was cooperating with LDP maintainance back then, and all of a sudden
> Mr. Joshua Poet appeared, and he offered to do a great lot of things.
> One of the things he wanted to do is maintain the net-howto. While I
> didn't completely agree on his ideas, he looked very active,
> definitely more than what I could ever be, so I couldn't deny the
> net-howto a new life. While feeling somewhat guilty towards Terry
> Dawson, the original author, I agreed to hand maintainance over to Poet.
> 
> Therefore I'm surprised to hear it's marked as unmaintained, as Poet
> was in touch with LDP management -- he even entered the LDP core team,
> IIRC.  While he wanted to make it more like a web site or something
> (thus obsoleting the classical howto documental form), this was known
> to the LDP.
> 
> Unfortunately, all of this was in another life and ages passed since
> then.  I never checked what happened to the howto or the web-centered
> initiative of mr. Poet., I just knew I was no more the net-howto
> maintainer, a task I couldn't afford anyways after the initial burst
> of activity.
> 
> > I am willing to maintain this document further and also host it at wikibooks
> > project under GNU Free Documentation License.
> >
> > http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Linux_Networking_How-To
> 
> That's great. I have no problems with that: I'm happy if previous work
> reveals useful and is brought onwards.  However, you should probably
> dig around what happened with Joshua Poet and his own initiative: you
> might find the document improved after I left it -- or you might find
> nothing happened after all.
> 
> If you want help digging for information, I can look in my oh so old
> email folders; just ask.  I didn't save all email back then, but I
> think I have enough references about what happened and what has been
> decided. I won't disclose private email, but most of the information
> was meant to be public anyways.
> 
> As for the license, I'm not completely happy about the GFDL (let's say
> I share all of Debian's concerns (and yes, rms knows I'm such a bad
> gnu member, we had some talk about that years ago). But I'm not
> opposed to it, it if's the only way to enter the chosen distribution
> channel.  Well, I'm especially not opposed if no invariant parts are
> sticked to the document, although I can't deny that kind of doping,
> given the license itself.
> 
> But please remember to ask Terry Dawson as well. He's the author of a
> relevant part of the material (most of it, if I remembed well).
> I've only been the maintainer (and thus co-author, since I added or
> updated parts), not the exclusive copytight holder.
> 
> >>  GFDL is the best choice for us, may be somebody can explain us if
> >>  the change GPL->is possible easily
> 
> No. It is not easy. The copyright holders (_all_ the copytight
> holders) should agree to re-release under a different license. GPL and
> GFDL are incompatible licenses, so no automatic conversion is
> possibile in either direction -- that's why it's so bad that gnu
> documents are not gpl any more (imho).
> 
> Thanks for your interest, and good luck with the networking howto.
> /alessandro

-- 
O.R.Senthil Kumaran
http://uthcode.sarovar.org

Here is an update on the Linux Networking Howto.
I contacted both the authors: Alexandro Rubini and Terry Dawson and requested
for transfer of maintainership and change of license to GFDL. Both of them are
okay with that.

Both Rubini and Terry, expressed some displeasure with GFDL (espcially with its
clause of invariant sections), but are fine with relicensing the docs, "should
we need it".

Two questions:
1) Do we need to relicense them? If yes, we have the permission.  

2) Can I start updating the document at wiki.tldp.org and make modifications
at the wiki itself directly? 

Here is my take on it:
I shall just update the document at the wiki.tldp.org without worrying about
Licensing, and when we settle upon it, I shall just use the (Free) License. (It
is difficult for me to follow the legal clauses and arguments. :( )

Thanks,
Senthil


* scriptor Terry Dawson, explico 

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> O.R.Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> 
> > This request is regarding the Maintainance of Linux Networking Howto.
> > You are the original author of that guide and it currently is in unmaintained
> > status. Is it okay that I take up the maintainership and update the document at
> > 
> > http://wiki.tldp.org 
> > http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Linux_Networking_How-To
> 
> Feel free, I think it's great that there are still people willing to
> volunteer their time to help others in this way.
> 
> > I also request your premission for change of License from GPLv2 to GFDL.
> > Gnu Free Documentation License was decided to be more suitable for Wiki's, so
> > it would indeed be suitable for HOWTO Documents on Wiki.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of the GFDL. I personally don't like (and have argued
> with Richard Stallman against) the clause that allows for immutable
> sections. Other than that I think it is ok.
> 
> I'm not sure what would make the GFDL more appropriate for wiki's than
> the GPL, but I have no objection to re-licensing the Networking-HOWTO
> under the GFDL.
> 
> Best Wishes.
> 
> Terry
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iQCVAwUBSNlpRtgbpUxTPNV5AQJm5QP/agtqjQtrzanCJ+bidDagjRXTPSAzDzEu
> vCoW56lN3QKLOaTTv54u3lOCRCynw+m3eKPjmLNCO5AsQ0w2GkWoQh5KKnGPNMWz
> tcXxH2rN5V1lQaVE+wqPdeyeFTbn3PyResGUTmcHWEWJECCS7jP45l3PDTn3yDeJ
> lJL0+n0YXm4=
> =QAJR
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
O.R.Senthil Kumaran
http://uthcode.sarovar.org

Quoting O.R.Senthil Kumaran ####@####.####

> Here is an update on the Linux Networking Howto.
> I contacted both the authors: Alexandro Rubini and Terry Dawson and requested
> for transfer of maintainership and change of license to GFDL. Both of them are
> okay with that.

This is excellent news.  As a reminder to mailing list readers, the
authors of record specified GPLv2 or above permissions for versions up
through their most recent release (1.5, Aug. 1999), but have not kept
the work up to date.

> Both Rubini and Terry, expressed some displeasure with GFDL (espcially
> with its clause of invariant sections), but are fine with relicensing
> the docs, "should we need it".

Please note, I think we'll find this a relatively common opinion among
those savvy about licensing. 

> Two questions:
> 1) Do we need to relicense them? If yes, we have the permission.  

May I make a modest suggestion?  For your revision, dual-license.  That
is, say that the document is available under the recipient's choice of
either GPLv2 or above, or GFDL v. 1.2 with no invariant sections or
cover text.  That has no practical disadvantages, and makes everyone
including Rubini and Dawson happy.

> 2) Can I start updating the document at wiki.tldp.org and make modifications
> at the wiki itself directly? 

I'd say yes.

Here's an example of dual-licensing in an LDP doc:
http://tldp.org/FAQ/WordPerfect-Linux-FAQ/feedback.html

Rick Moen a écrit :

> I'd say yes.

me too.

I'm always puzzled about dual licencing when some people say the
licence are uncompatible. how can somebody say yes and no at the same
time?

could there be any advantage to default LDP doc to dual licences
(apart making lawyers rich?)

jdd

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

Quoting Jean-Daniel Dodin ####@####.####

> I'm always puzzled about dual licencing when some people say the
> licence are uncompatible. how can somebody say yes and no at the same
> time?

No problem.  I'm glad to explain.

The notion of dual-licensing is to give the recipient the choice of
picking _either_ licence to accept the entire work under.  In that
context, there's no reason why the licences in question cannot be wildly
different, and indeed so different that they would be completely
incompatible when specified for different parts of a single work.

For example, if you had a really fast, but obscure database engine, and
wanted to publicise it and show off its source code to the public but
didn't want to permit your software-industry competitors to incorporate
the engine into any of their commercial products, you could issue the 
source code like this:

    The MyEngine database source code is available under the 
    recipient's choice of either GPLv2 or, at the recipient's option,
    the proprietary, pay-for-use licence posted at
    http://myengine.example.com/licence/ .

Licence compatiblity becomes an issue where a single work includes code
under two licences, one of which does not permit inclusion of code under
the other in derivative works.  Here's an example:

Back when I worked at VA Linux Systems in the late 1990s/early 2000s, my
friend Marc Merlin created RPMs of the Exim MTA with TLS extensions he
wrote that used OpenSSL libraries for cryptographic wrapping of SMTP.
He said he was going to put those out for public ftp.

I said, "Wait, Marc.  Unfortunately, that would be copyright violation,
because OpenSSL is, in part, under the old BSD licence with the
advertising clause, whereas Exim is under GPLv2, such that the advertising
clause becomes a 'further restriction' making distribution of the
composite work a violation of Exim's licence."  Marc swore fluently
about just how much licensing problems suck, and then just adopted my
suggestion of asking Exim author Phil Hazel to grant a licensing
exception permitting linking against OpenSSL, which he immediately gave.
End of problem.

> could there be any advantage to default LDP doc to dual licences
> (apart making lawyers rich?)

Of course there is.

First of all, the author giving people additional permissions cannot
possibly make any author rich.  If you don't mind my saying so, your
question suggests you're confusing dual-licensing -- giving the
recipient the choice of two alternative licences -- with the use of two
incompatible licences within a single work.  The latter (immediately)
creates problems.  The former is often used to avoid them -- or to make
people like Rubini and Terry happy by letting recipients continue to
elect GPLv2 (which they know and trust) while also makign happy people
in LDP who for some reason like GFDL.

May I be really blunt for a moment?  I have a strong suspicion that the
several people including yourself who've been pushing GFDL only, on this
mailing list, have no understanding of licensing and haven't actually
attempted to read and understand GFDL, either.

I could be wrong, of course, but I just have that suspicion.

* scriptor Rick Moen, explico 
> 
> > 2) Can I start updating the document at wiki.tldp.org and make modifications
> > at the wiki itself directly? 
> 
> I'd say yes.
> 
> Here's an example of dual-licensing in an LDP doc:
> http://tldp.org/FAQ/WordPerfect-Linux-FAQ/feedback.html

Thank you for the pointer, Rick. I am considering into this point. Might end up
using the same verbiage.

-- 
O.R.Senthil Kumaran
http://uthcode.sarovar.org

Rick Moen a écrit :

>> could there be any advantage to default LDP doc to dual licences
>> (apart making lawyers rich?)

it's my fault having started this fork, so I prefere to move it to the
thread "licence problem" where it belongs

sorry
jdd

-- 
jdd for the Linux Documentation Project
http://wiki.tldp.org
http://www.dodin.net