discuss: Thread: is this a free licence?

This document is very old :-). It seems to retain a default LDP
licence of this time.

http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Benchmarking-HOWTO-7.html#ss7.2

writen like this, I feel the licence allows modification on the wiki
(retaining the licence, of course. Author unreachable ATM, of course.

is this right?
thanks
jdd
-- 
jdd for the Linux Documentation Project
http://wiki.tldp.org
http://www.dodin.net

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

> This document is very old :-). It seems to retain a default LDP
> licence of this time.
> 
> http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Benchmarking-HOWTO-7.html#ss7.2
> 
> writen like this, I feel the licence allows modification on the wiki
> (retaining the licence, of course. Author unreachable ATM, of course.

The licence statement in section 7.2 is clear about granting the right
of redistribution (good!), but is very non-specific -- ambiguous --
about the right to distribute.  It says that permission is NOT granted
to produce derivatives if those derivatives try to further restrict the
recipient, that they must to the contrary grant these same rights.
(I.e., it's an attempt at copyleft.)  However, strictly speaking, the
author forgot to say anything like "you may create and distribute
derivative works".  

I think and hope that a fair reading of the paragraph is that author
André D. Balsa_meant_ to grant that right.  Actually, though, I notice
that, to to extent he talks about derivatives at all, he spoke of ones
created only by "incorporating [a] Linux HOWTO" -- which wording by no
means covers modifications.

So, unhappily, I'd say the paragraph is very unclear and confused.  On
the bright side, it can serve as an excellent example of how _not_ to
draft a licence.  ;->

Before my morning coffee took effect, I wrote:

> The licence statement in section 7.2 is clear about granting the right
> of redistribution (good!), but is very non-specific -- ambiguous --
> about the right to distribute.  It says that permission is NOT granted
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^
> to produce derivatives if those derivatives try to further restrict the
> recipient, that they must to the contrary grant these same rights.
> (I.e., it's an attempt at copyleft.)  However, strictly speaking, the
> author forgot to say anything like "you may create and distribute
> derivative works".  
> 
> I think and hope that a fair reading of the paragraph is that author
> André D. Balsa_meant_ to grant that right.  Actually, though, I notice
> that, to to extent he talks about derivatives at all, he spoke of ones
> created only by "incorporating [a] Linux HOWTO" -- which wording by no
> means covers modifications.
> 
> So, unhappily, I'd say the paragraph is very unclear and confused.  On
> the bright side, it can serve as an excellent example of how _not_ to
> draft a licence.  ;->

Highlighted text should have been "create and distribute _derivatives_".
Sorry about any confusion.

Rick Moen a écrit :
> Quoting Jean-Daniel Dodin ####@####.####

>> http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Benchmarking-HOWTO-7.html#ss7.2
>>
>> writen like this, I feel the licence allows modification on the wiki
>> (retaining the licence, of course. Author unreachable ATM, of course.

> André D. Balsa_meant_ to grant that right.  Actually, though, I notice

I just found the author's modern blog :-), he still works on Linux.
he's french, I will write him.

http://complex.futurs.inria.fr/twiki/bin/view/Apis/AndreBalsa

jdd

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