Re: Linux Documentation Project License (LDPL) v2.0
@ 24/09/2005 14:22 : wrote Francesco Poli :
> 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.
AOK so far.
>
> A. REQUIREMENTS OF MODIFIED WORKS
>
> All modified documents, including translations,
> anthologies, and partial documents, must meet the
> following requirements:
Oops. Anthologies? See my rant on "mere aggregation" below.
>
> 1. The modified version must be labeled as such.
Borderline, but free.
> 2. The person making the modifications must be
> identified.
Yellow alert -- dissident test. Marco d'Itri is extremely vocal
against the Dissident Test, but I think anonymity is necessary for
Free Software.
> 3. Acknowledgement of the original author must be
> retained.
OK
> 4. The location of the original unmodified document be
> identified.
This may get annoying when mixing various same-license docs, but OK
IIRC.
> 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.
OK.
>
> In addition it is requested that:
More requests, they are all OK, because they are not mandatory.
>
> 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.
I hate this GPL phrase ("mere aggregation" = Lawyer-bomb). How does
one differentiate between an anthology work (covered by section "A"
above) and a "mere aggregation"? What is "the same media"? Does a
single ELF executable aggregating things -- including docs covered
by this license count as "the same media"?
>
> 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.
Another lawyer-bomb: "source format". Especially without definition.
>
> 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.
Obviously, any work under this variation is non-free.
>
> 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.
Obviously, any work under this variation may or may not be free (and
it certainly isn't free if it does require non-modified-only
distribution).
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
> 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?
>
IMHO they do NOT comply with the DFSG. In the case someone wants to
know, the following modifications would render this license
completely "clean" in my opinion:
Delete the word "anthologies" from "A. REQUIREMENTS" caput.
Loosen requirement A.1.: "The modified version should be marked as
such, OR modifications should be noted in the History section of the
document OR on a separate changelog file"
Delete requirement A.2.
Loosen requirement A.4.: "If there is the location of the original
document in its text, it should be left untouched OR it could be
transferred for a History section OR to the changelog file OR to
somewhere else in the distributed package."
Substitute the "mere aggregation" paragraph by "Anthology works
containing this work or any derivative work of it are permitted, and
the terms of this license shall not apply to the other works
contained in the same anthology and licensed by a different
license."
Substitute "source format", in the following paragraph, by "in the
format the original author chose to write and modify the work OR in
the format the derivative work's author chose to write and modify
the work OR in any format that could demonstrably be translated back
and forth to one of those formats without loss of information."
Any use of the options B or C from the policy that involve
prohibiting modification is, of course, non-free.
--
That's what I think :-)
HTH,
Massa
Reply to: