discuss: Thread: licence problems

jdd a écrit :
>  and licence free can
> be set on a write disabled wiki page with companion discussion page
> for the modifs. I think all the LDP documents allow derivative works,
> as stated in the (old) manifesto, we can probably state than the
> minimal requirements are met by all documents.

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. "

I think it's possible to make derivative work from unmodifiable document.

* we can distribute it
* why couldn't we *add* to the document any commentary.

To make a new document, with different licence, we must make a fairly
different doc, that couldn't be seen as a derivative from the first one

jdd

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

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

> It would be nice if all wiki articles were GFDL.  This makes it easy
> for users to understand what the rules are and anyone that wants to
> print them doesn't have to examine many different licenses.  

I suppose so, but that's _not_ the question before us. 

The question is whether a particular set of other licences, well known ones
that are genuinely free licences and already commonly used for
writings/documentation, are acceptable to LDP.  If not, LDP may well end
up refusing valuable submissions for, I would point out, no particularly
compelling reason.  I'd say deliberately refusing good submissions just
because they have the wrong free licence is not in LDP's interest --
particularly since GFDL itself isn't even a particularly good
licence[1], only one of the two best known (primarily on account of
Wikipedia).

> I think the proposal to contact authors and ask them to change the
> license to GFDL (no invariant sects.) is a good one.

GFDL _v. 1.2_ with no invariant sections, yes.

> But what about the cases where you can't find the author (or the cases
> where the author will not change the license, or can't because the
> co-author(s) can't be located)?  In these cases, if the existing
> license allows modification they could be added to the wiki.

All of the licences I listed are, of course, compatible with that
objective:  They're all forkable "free" licences.  (Some are copyleft,
others are simple permissive licences.)  Which fixes the maintenance
problem LDP is trying to solve.

> So I'm proposing that all wiki docs be GFDL except for cases where
> it's not feasible.

Again, that is _not_ the question before us.  The question is whether
LDP will be willing to accept documents under the several other free
(forkable) documentation licences, other than GFDL 1.2 without invariant
sections.

[1] For one thing, it's horribly verbose, has that really
problematic DRM language, and is quite difficult to understand for both
of those reasons and others.

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

> obsolete docs should be moved to a obsolete file, and licence free can
> be set on a write disabled wiki page with companion discussion page
> for the modifs. I think all the LDP documents allow derivative works,
> as stated in the (old) manifesto, we can probably state than the
> minimal requirements are met by all documents.

Unfortunately, no, _not_ all extant LDP documents allow derivative works.
The contents of the old LDP manifest is not relevant; LDP's manifest fails 
(and has always failed) to solve the problem, as it is simply not a
permission grant by the licensor.

If the author hasn't said somewhere that the work may be used to create
derivative works, then there's no licence to that effect.  It's a right
reserved by default to copyright owners.[1]  The author (or subsequent
owner of copyright title) must grant that permission by some affirmative
act, or it remains with himself/herself.

LDP's staff _probably_ would not get sued for copyright violation if it
were to pretend that the (old) manifesto somehow created a blanket
automatic author's grant of derivative-work rights, but only because 
the property values at stake aren't high enough.  However, it _would_ 
get a public reputation for ignoring authors' rights.  That would be
A Bad Thing, in my view.

[1] If that's surprising, then think of it this way:  National copyright
laws and the Berne Convention cause copyright title to arise
automatically at the moment of a creative work's composition, and vests
in the creator.  (The creator gains ownership.)  If the author
subsequently gives out copies and (hypothetically) doesn't say anything
about the right to redistribute or to create and distribute derivative
works, then those rights are not conveyed, but instead automatically
rest with the copyright owner.  Conveying those rights thus requires an
explicit _licence_, a permission grant beyond what is conveyed by
default, when someone is handed a copy.

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."

What's your response?  Other than to lose, get an injunction against
you, and possibly pay damages?  ;->

Rick Moen a écrit :
> 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."
> 
> 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.

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

Don't forget LDP don't copy others documents to include them in his
docs, they are the autors that gives docs to the LDP.

anyway, this discussion is not that important, we can't even accept to
be suspected of licence infringement (rember the Cesar's wife :-).

So We have to keep any problematic document untouched on it's own page
and open a comment page (this is always allowed).

jdd

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

Rick Moen a écrit :

> The question is whether a particular set of other licences, well known ones
> that are genuinely free licences and already commonly used for
> writings/documentation, are acceptable to LDP.  If not, LDP may well end
> up refusing valuable submissions for, I would point out, no particularly
> compelling reason.  I'd say deliberately refusing good submissions just
> because they have the wrong free licence is not in LDP's interest --
> particularly since GFDL itself isn't even a particularly good
> licence[1], only one of the two best known (primarily on account of
> Wikipedia).

I added to the http://wiki.tldp.org/LdpWikiDefaultLicence/comments page:

"Accepted licences

If, for a reason, you want to use an other than the default LDP
licence, we can examine your arguments. Known to be acceptable
licences are:

* creative commons BY-SA
* GPL"

feel free to complete the list :-)

don't forget either that few documents (proposed to us) are important
enough for us to have to examine them on this subject, and that
inculding unappreciated licence can lead of kind of problem we have
now: we should never have accepted documents without licence...

jdd

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

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

> my answer is that the authors was the one that asked to be included in
> LDP documents, so doing he accepts the LDP policy.

At the risk of overstressing the point:  Your answer would not help in
hypothetical copyright-violation legal proceedings -- and, more
important, would not help LDP avert the public-relations scandal that
would overtake it, if it were observed to violate authors' rights to
their works.

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

That is true, too.

I mainly wanted to speak out quickly to discourage treating actions as
authorised by the author on account of something LDP has said, which
unfortunately isn't very useful in establishing what the author has
authorised.

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

> feel free to complete the list :-)

Done!  Thanks.

> don't forget either that few documents (proposed to us) are important
> enough for us to have to examine them on this subject, and that
> inculding unappreciated licence can lead of kind of problem we have
> now: we should never have accepted documents without licence...

Oh, I do agree.  Also, one relatively good bit of news is that the
existing documents with non-free licensing will tend, over time, 
to become ones we want to replace, anyway.  As you wrote, "Authors
frequently give up after some years, and we have to allow new authors to
take over."  Which means that, in general, docs that don't permit
successor maintainers will tend to be among the ones that age badly.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:36:55PM +0200, jdd wrote:
> David Lawyer a écrit :
> 
> > doc using the GFDL license.  So I'm proposing that all wiki docs be
> > GFDL except for cases where it's not feasible.
> 
> agree.
> 
> > 

Please note: unless they are GFDL with no invariant sections - they 
won't ever go anywhere near Debian. 

That _probably_ also includes Ubuntu and derivatives.

Please ensure that any documents are DFSG free if you practicably can = 
not least becase Debian is still able to support David's Linuxdoc :)

AndyC


> 
> jdd
> 

Andrew M.A. Cater a écrit :

> Please note: unless they are GFDL with no invariant sections - they 
> won't ever go anywhere near Debian. 

it's that what is wanted at the time.

I copy here a trhread that I started inadvertently elsewhere, but is
better here

Rick Moen a écrit :

>> 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.

no.

but you can have a situation where two derivative works have twxo
uncompatible licences, and how do you cope with this on the LDP? if
one author changes the beginning of the document and an other the end
of it?

and if the authors feel confident with GPL and not with GFDL, I don't
see how tha dual licencing can make them glad. I think it will make
unhappy both the users of each licence.

After all one can say: "do whatever you want of my doc", or don't say
anything and so keep all the rights, so any licence goal is to give
some rights, but not all and dual licencing only makes it more
difficult to understand.

>
> 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.

oh yes, I have!! I even have a father than lived from patents end so
patents problems are well known at home.

and I don't care of the default LDP licence, but to say we must have
one allowing derivative works to be able to change content and even
authors.


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