Re: Endorsements (was: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD)
0) Is this section intended to be free-form text that can contain
anything, or specifically a list of names and contact information? Can we
somehow disallow a 200-page useful endorsement with a 10-line useless
body? Or should this simply be judgement that we apply on a per-package
basis?
Also, is there a more general term to use than "endorsements"? I've been
known to write things I don't actually endorse, but still want my
authorship known. I'd prefer "attributions" or "contributors".
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) Endorsements would go along with the copyright notice itself, not the
> license text. This is so that they are somewhat prominent.
I'd prefer not to have varying-length text be an unchangeable part of
the document. Could we instead require specific text in the copyright
statement that refers to the license text that may include attributions?
> 2) Distributors are NOT compelled to *retain* endorsements in the copies
> of the document they distribute. If they want to trim the endorsement
> list, even to zero, for purposes of space, personal feud, or whatever,
> they may.
This seems workable. I presume the endorsement is all-or-nothing; a
distributor cannot trim endorsements to non-zero without specific
extra-license permission. Nor correct typos, etc.
> 3) Endorsements *must* be removed when a document is modified in any
> way. Endorsers may wish to communicate to the world (via a Web Page),
> blanket permission to retain their endorsement under certain
> circumstances (e.g. "any typographical corrections" or "as long as the
> chapter entitled Funding Free Software is retained in its original
> form").
I like the idea, but it may be difficult to execute. Who must
provide such permission? Every endorser? Every distributor up the chain?
We should at the very least provide boilerplate for the additional
permission that specifies that a document modified under the special
exemption may itself be distributed under the DFCL with or without the
special permission.
> 4) Anyone, not just the copyright holder of the document in question,
> can sign on as an endorser to a version of any DFCL-licensed document.
> Whether their endorsement is listed is up to the distributor (see 2
> above).
I would hope that I am not allowed to, without special permission, add
names to the endorsement list without removing the existing endorsement
list? May I distribute documents endorsed by "The Band of Three", Benito
Mussolini, Josef Stalin, and Branden Robinson? [ note clever avoidance of
Godwin's Law.]
Actually, I guess I should be disallowed from adding anyone to the
endorsement list without their permission. Can the license prevent me
from adding a name to the endorsemements that I just removed to comply
with #3?
> 5) Removing that text will not be permitted, unfortunately (yes, this is
> invariant text).
I'd prefer this be in the license document rather than in the text itself,
but it's not a showstopper IMO. As long as the invariant text is 1)
very short and 2) not a creative work in itself.
> We *could* require that an edition with no endorsements have an
> alternative notice that says so with scary language, but that introduces
> complexity and I'd rather not go that road.
Are you willing to go down that road if we change "require" to "allow"? If
all attributions are removed, we could allow a very short notice like
"This version has been modified, and may not faithfully represent the
original work." Or the distributor could keep the original longer
invariant, whichever she prefers.
This shorter notice also makes clearer that a work can express a point of
view which may be different than that of the "endorsers".
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: