Hi all! :)
The default LDP license v2.0 is adopted by a number of HOWTOs, some of
them currently distributed in main.
The problem is: I'm *not* conviced that such documents comply with the
DFSG.
I would like to discuss the DFSG-compliance of a work released solely
under this license (excluding other legal issues, such as trademarks,
patents, and so forth).
=-=-=-=-= License text follows: =-=-=-=-=
LINUX DOCUMENTATION PROJECT LICENSE (LDPL) v2.0, 12 January 1998
I. COPYRIGHT
The copyright to each Linux Documentation Project (LDP) document is owned
by its author or authors.
II. LICENSE
The following license terms apply to all LDP documents, unless otherwise
stated in the document. The LDP documents may be reproduced and distributed
in whole or in part, in any medium physical or electronic, provided that
this license notice is displayed in the reproduction. Commercial
redistribution is permitted and encouraged. Thirty days advance notice via
email to the author(s) of redistribution is appreciated, to give the
authors time to provide updated documents.
A. REQUIREMENTS OF MODIFIED WORKS
All modified documents, including translations, anthologies, and
partial documents, must meet the following requirements:
1. The modified version must be labeled as such.
2. The person making the modifications must be identified.
3. Acknowledgement of the original author must be retained.
4. The location of the original unmodified document be identified.
5. The original author's (or authors') name(s) may not be used to
assert or imply endorsement of the resulting document without the
original author's (or authors') permission.
In addition it is requested that:
1. The modifications (including deletions) be noted.
2. The author be notified by email of the modification in advance of
redistribution, if an email address is provided in the document.
As a special exception, anthologies of LDP documents may include a
single copy of these license terms in a conspicuous location within the
anthology and replace other copies of this license with a reference to
the single copy of the license without the document being considered
"modified" for the purposes of this section.
Mere aggregation of LDP documents with other documents or programs on
the same media shall not cause this license to apply to those other
works.
All translations, derivative documents, or modified documents that
incorporate any LDP document may not have more restrictive license
terms than these, except that you may require distributors to make the
resulting document available in source format.
LDP documents are available in source format via the LDP home page at
http://sunsite.unc.edu/LDP/.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDP Policy Appendices
A. TO USE THE LDP LICENSE
LDP authors who want to use the LDP License should put the following
statement in their document:
Copyright (c) by . This document may be distributed only subject to the
terms and conditions set forth in the LDP License at .
Authors may include a copy of the license in their documents, as well. If
they do so, they have the option of ommitting the appendices.
B. TO USE THE LDP LICENSE, BUT PREVENT MODIFICATION
LDP authors who want to prevent modification to their document should put
the following statement in their document:
Copyright (c) by . This document may be distributed only subject to the
terms and conditions set forth in the LDP License at , except that this
document must not be distributed in modified form without the author's
consent.
C. TO USE YOUR OWN LICENSE
LDP authors who want to include their own license on LDP works may do so,
as long as their terms are not more restrictive than the LDP license,
except that they may require that the document may not be modified.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about the LDP License, please contact Guylhem Aznar,
guylhem@metalab.unc.edu.
=-=-=-=-= End of license text =-=-=-=-=
The main clauses I'm concerned about are:
Clause A.2:
| 2. The person making the modifications must be identified.
This fails to allow anonymous modifications and thus fails the
Dissident test, it's a restriction on modifications (I have to
give up something, namely my anonymity, in order to get permission
to modify), see DFSG#3.
Clause A.2bis:
| 2. The author be notified by email of the modification in advance of
| redistribution, if an email address is provided in the document.
_If_ the document includes "an email address", this fails to the
Desert Island test, discriminates against people that do not have
Internet access (or anyway the possibility to send e-mail messages):
fails DFSG#5.
BTW, it says "if an email address is provided in the document": what
does it mean?
An email address for the author?
Or _any_ email address?
If the document includes <foo@example.com> or any other email address,
am I compelled to find out by myself which is the author's email
address and notify him/her by email in order to distribute a modified
version?
Of course any author that exercises option B of LDP Policy, makes
his/her document trivially non-free.
What I'm concerned about is: it seems that even documents released
under the LDPLv2 following option A, do not comply with the DFSG.
What do you think?
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpqxA6IZZvMU.pgp
Description: PGP signature