[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux Documentation Project License (LDPL) v2.0

Francesco Poli writes:

> 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.

I think the license clause permits pseudonymity, which would generally
protect the modifier from harassment, but both interpretations are
reasonable.  I would be happier if the license were clearer on what
kind of identification is permitted.

> 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.

In the license, this is listed as a request, separate from the
definite requirements from the prevoius list.  I do not think a
reasonable person would interpret the request as a requirement.

Michael Poole

Reply to: