discuss: Thread: getting rid of the linuxdoc.org problem

Hello :-)

I think we have been sufficiently bored by the linuxdoc.org link
problem. We have to find a solution now, and according to the licence.

Remainder, the nature of the problem:
We have a pretty large number of HOWTOs giving links to the old ldp
Web site, AKA linuxdoc.org. This URL point today to a commercial Web
Site. This is a problem because the URL is exposed on the LDP Web site
and on the mirrors.

Solutions:
1) If the licence allows modification, there is no real problem. As
soon as time permits, we can modify the source and submit it.

2) If the licence *don't* allow modification, we have again two options:

2.a.) The document was submitted on docbook form. If so, only the
*source* is licenced, as all the publication is done by the LDP.
Letting the URL is the source have little influence, nobody use the
source of unmodifiable document, and I don't think the robots are
parsing docbook (are they? we can gzip the source). All we have to do
is patch the publication scripts (or patch the result manually) to
replace linudoc.org by tldp.org. There is no question than the author
wanted to link to the LDP and we don't have to modify the source file.
If this idea don't seems valuable, we can still use the second one (2.b.)

2.b.) If we don't have docbook as source, but text only or html only.
Pack the source in an individual gzip file and make only this one
available. Add a notice on the link page (or in the file name, or
both, like "include corrupted links". Some robots may go inside a
gzipped file, but this have little importance for us.

Once we agree on a solution, I will copy the notice to the wiki and
apply it each time I get such a file as browsing the collection. We
soon will get rid of the problem.

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

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

> 2) If the licence *don't* allow modification, we have again two options:
> 
> 2.a.) The document was submitted on docbook form. If so, only the
> *source* is licenced, as all the publication is done by the LDP.

Um, no.  That is wrong.

If the document was submitted in Docbook form with proprietary licensing
(e.g., no explicit licensing at all, or a variety of other non-free
licences), then LDP was still granted implied licence to publish the
document in all the usual ways prevalent at the time of submission.

Both your conclusion ("only the source is licensed") and your premise
("all publication is done by the LDP") are factually incorrect.  Also,
the conclusion doesn't even follow from the premise.

> Letting the URL is the source have little influence, nobody use the
> source of unmodifiable document, and I don't think the robots are
> parsing docbook (are they? we can gzip the source). All we have to do
> is patch the publication scripts (or patch the result manually) to
> replace linudoc.org by tldp.org. There is no question than the author
> wanted to link to the LDP and we don't have to modify the source file.

Look, are you still trying to talk around the fact that you're proposing
a modification, and that it's technical copyright violation?  You really
do need to get over that.  You _are_ talking about a modification of the
document, it _is_ technical copyright violation, and it's pretty much
harmless.

But you/we-all need to stop kidding ourselves or inventing ingenious 
but bogus arguments as to why that is supposedly not an unlicensed
action, in cases where it clearly is.  In the ridiculously unlikely
event of the matter being litigated, a judge is not going to accept your
contention that the author intended to permit LDP to change the
document's hyperlink URLs.  The judge will say "You chhanged it so it no
longer points to linuxdoc.org?  That's a modification, sorry.  And the
author's licence doesn't grant any right of modification."

> 2.b.) If we don't have docbook as source, but text only or html only.
> Pack the source in an individual gzip file and make only this one
> available. Add a notice on the link page (or in the file name, or
> both, like "include corrupted links". Some robots may go inside a
> gzipped file, but this have little importance for us.

I think that's really pretty stupid on a variety of levels.  First,
users will not understand the term "corrupted links" as meaning
"obsolete links that now point to a domain squatter's site".  Second,
LDP have the (implied) licence to transform the available file into
more-convenient formats; we should use that right -- and just change the
damned links.

> Once we agree on a solution....

Unanimity is unlikely.

As you've noticed, even after years of discussion, David Lawyer is
_still_ trying to allege that licences prohibiting advertising are
"free" despite being told otherwise by pretty much anyone capable of
reading and understanding the OSD, DFSG, and/or Four Freedoms essay --
and is still trying to promote the view that (alternatively) a "new
definition of free" needs to get established to accomodate his view.

At some point, it becomes necessary to distinguish good analysis from
bad, realise that you cannot make everyone happy, make a decision, and
live with the consequences.