discuss: Thread: Re: Dead links; linuxdoc.org

David Lawyer a écrit :
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 09:14:38PM +0100, jdd for http://tldp.org wrote:

>> I hope soon we will be able to move to the wiki any such problematic HOWTO
> You'll likely need to move most HOWTOs there.

yes, but it have to be done manually (read the licence...) at least
right now

> So what is needed is a volunteer to run wget (likely via a shell
> script) on all HOWTO's periodically

I run lincheck on the tldp site. This took several days and the result
was so hudge to be unusable :-(

> actually reach me, via use of a form letter).  But due to my email
> being widely available, I've also gotten many emails that are helpful,

same for me. found old chaps :-))

the wiki is the solution. Also simply remove on the source the
"http:://" part that makes it a link automatically in most browsers.
as so the URL is much less usable (I already do this for doubtfull
mirrors)

jdd


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

Rick Moen a écrit :
> Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####

>> Thus the task of fixing these erroneous linuxdoc.org links in HOWTOs
>> is important....
> 
> Agreed.  Because that (along with hunting down and pestering out of


>> ...and one could do this without getting the authors' permissions,
>> although perhaps not legally.
> 
> I would favour this. 

are even more, we can state than the author wanted to link to the ldp.
Changing the link from http://linuxdoc.org to http://tldp.org should
so be only a redirection.

I make the staff list copy of this mail because we could do this with
a script running on the docbook base (CVS), but this needs
resubmitting all the modified HOWTOs and this is not (yet) completely
automatic.

I'm not smart enough to do such script. Any volunteer?

thanks
jdd

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

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

> are even more, we can state than the author wanted to link to the ldp.
> Changing the link from http://linuxdoc.org to http://tldp.org should
> so be only a redirection.

Just to be clear, I continue to think that the change you speak of, like
pretty much any change to a document for which no licensing granted the 
right of modification, _is_ technical copyright violation.

I've found, over the years, that computerists are typically so extremely
ignorant about legal matters that they have a really difficult time
assessing exposure to risk of tort litigation.  If you have arguably
committed a tort, there is a non-zero chance you might get hauled into
court over it -- and there is some unavoidable risk of this merely from
being alive and around other people.

On other mailing lists, I've sometimes told the story of when I was
working at one of the major Linux companies (which of necessity will go
nameless), and was reminded of the valuable lesson that firms in
business _frequently_ are obliged to choose the less damaging of two
torts.  Ah, here's one of the times I told the story (in a thread where
I was responding to a very common but perniciously wrong claim):


---<snip>---

> This is why some people consider the GPL to be a viral license.
> Specifically if you can't stay at arms distance from it,....

...which means nothing more than avoiding using someone else's
copyrighted creative works without permission....

> you are likely going to be required to release under the terms of the
> GPL.

Rubbish.  Infamous misinformation, at that.


Let's say I was working, some years back, at a Linux firm when one of
these issues came up.  I could probably name the firm without harm
because it can't seem to make up its mind what it name is, but it's a
bad habit, so I won't.

Let's say an e-mail request came in, one morning, for matching source
code access per the terms of GPLv2 clause 3b from a pleasant-sounding
guy at Mountain View Data, who noted that the firm had published a
binary RPM of an ndmp backup utility coded from a programmer in, say,
New Hampshire.  He noted that the firm's version, which it published as
part of a Red Hat variant distro for clusters, seemed to have
improvements, and he wanted to see them.

This was referred to me as the firm's unofficial licensing guy.  The
request sounded sensible to me, and so I inquired with Software
Engineering about source -- and they panicked.  It turned out that some
failure of communication between Professional Services and Software
Engineering had permitted some code from two of the firm's major
business partners, which was proprietary and shared under NDA, had been
added to the GPL ndmp by one department, and then released to the public 
by the other department without double-checking code provenance.[1]  I
sent a summary of the situation to Jay S., the chief company counsel, 
waited half an hour, and went to knock on his door.

Now, Jay is a very sharp fellow, and I was always proud that Jay
considered me relatively clueful for a non-lawyer, so he would often 
let me work things out rather than hand me explanations on a platter.


RM:  Let me guess:  We're not going to provide source code to the
Mountain View Data guy.

JS:  No, we aren't.

RM:  But we _are_ obligated to do so under the terms of GPLv2 cluse 3b 
that we accepted when we made derivative works and redistributed, right?  

JS:  Yes.

RM:  Hold on.  Let me work this out....  Failing to provide the source
violates the New Hampshire guy's copyright, which is a tort, because
we've been carrying out actions permitted only if we meet that
obligation....  This is going to be one of those situations where we are
forced by circumstances to choose between two torts, and so are picking
the one that's harmless, right?

JS:  Right.

RM:  OK, complying with the request would mean violating our contracts
with [names of the two heavy-hitter business partners], and being in 
breach of contract with them would be very bad, subjecting us to
possible serious tort litigation as well as souring important
relationships and ruining our reputation generally.  So, very bad
outcomes if we do that.

On the other hand, let's say that we cease offering the modified ndmp
package to all outside parties right now.  We've been violating the New
Hampshire guy's copyright in a very minor way up until now, but (1) he
almost certainly didn't know about it, and didn't complain, (2) he's
probably suffered about zero demonstrable economic loss aka "actual
damages", which is all (other than enjoining further infringement)
that's even potentially available unless you've registered your
copyright with the Library of Congress either prior to infringement or
within three months of publication, (3) almost no open source coder
bothers to register (which allows collection of statutory damages plus
attorney's fees) because it takes $35 and some paperwork.

The New Hampshire guy would have standing to sue, but isn't motivated,
isn't annoyed at us, and couldn't collect anything -- and we're right
about to fix the only thing that could annoy him.  The Mountain View guy
completely lacks standing concerning the ndmp code (not being the
affected copyright owner), and therefore couldn't even potentially sue
anyone.

JS:  Right.

RM:  So, we're going to reply back to the Mountain View Data guy saying,
"We're really sorry for the inconvenience, but the modified ndmp code
was made available in binary RPM form accidentally, and should not have
been.  Accordingly, we've removed it from the ftp site."   And thus
we'll
have fixed the problem _and_ done the right thing.

JS:  You got it.

---<snip>---

A typical LDP HOWTO author (who never granted the right to create
derivative works) would be in a position analogous to that of the New
Hampshire code author:  His/her copyright would technically have been
violated by LDP's correction of a URL (or similar update), and
technically _could_ haul LDP personnel into court on a civil tort 
allegation, but would have extremely little reason to do so, vanishingly
little to gain from it, and almost zero enforcement powers in any event, 
given how few of them would even bother spending US $35 to register
their copyrights.

But you _are_ (and we are), absolutely, talking about (technical)
copyright violation -- and, if that makes you uncomfortably nervous,
then don't do it.