Manifesto License Requirements (was Re: Manifesto / policy issues)

[David Lawyer <dave@lafn.org>]

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 01:14:26AM -0500, David Merrill wrote:
> What is the current status of the Manifesto? I've seen some
> conversation, and lots of good suggestions for improvements. My
> understanding is that we have a pretty good general agreement on it, so
> let's not drop the ball and let the new version just disappear.
> 
> Does anyone still have any major outstanding problems with the new
> Manifesto, as last posted to the list?

Yes!
 
> Guylhem, or whoever has made the suggested changes, will you please
> repost the revised version so everyone can eyeball it and yea/nay it?
> 
> David Lawyer, I know you had several issues with the text as we drafted
> it at the summit, and I think by and large they were valid ones. I
> didn't agree with exactly *everything* you had to say, but I don't
> expect to. We don't have to agree on absolutely everything. This was the
> reason I stressed at the summit that the Manifesto should *really* be a
> guideline, not a straitjacket for authors.

The existing manisfesto is by no means a straitjacket.

I'm sorry that I procrastinated on this but the LICENSE
RECOMMENDATIONS section needs rewriting.  To be part of the LDP
collection we have some requirements (not just recommendations).  So
if it is just entitled RECOMMENDATIONS some people will think that
anything goes and use any license they want.  For example they could
say that you can't copy the doc but may only view it via a browser
(which is a type of copying it temporarily).

Here's the section on LICENSES from the existing and proposed Manifestos:

------------------------------Existing----------------------------------
5. LICENSE REQUIREMENTS

   Anyone may copy and distribute (sell or give away) LDP documents (or
   other LDP works) in any media and/or format. No fees are required to
   be paid to the authors. It is not required that the documents be
   modifiable, but it is encouraged.
   
   You can come up with your own license terms that satisfy these
   conditions, or you can use a previously prepared license. The LDP has
   a boilerplate license that you can use if you wish. Some people like
   to use the [17]GPL, while others write their own. There is a project
   underway to create a special GPL license just for documents and this
   may turn out to be a good choice.
   
   The copyright for each document should be in the name of the principal
   authors. "The Linux Documentation Project" isn't a formal entity and
   thus can't be used as a copyright owner.

---------------------------------Proposed-------------------------------
5. LICENSE RECOMMENDATIONS

   We are concerned that:
     * publishers will not receive the monetary benefit and public
       recognition from their efforts
     * publishers will not use free licenses.
       
   To overcome these concerns, we recommend that our authors choose
   licenses that meet the following criteria:
     * A humanly readable "transparent" source must be available. It must
       also be machine-readable, represented in a format whose
       specification is available to the general public, whose contents
       can be viewed and edited directly and straightforwardly with
       generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic
       paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing
       editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for
       automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input
       to text formatters.
     * Content modification must be allowed, although non-modifiable
       parts are permitted
     * Redistribution, both commercial and noncommercial, must be allowed
     * The license must propagate to derived works
       
   You can come up with your own license terms that satisfy these
   conditions, or you can use a previously prepared license. The LDP
   recommends the [17]GNU Free Documentation License. Licenses that do
   not meet these recommendations are allowed, but documents employing
   these licenses are archived separately under "non-free".
   
   Each document should be copyrighted in the name of the principal
   authors. "The LDP" is not a formal entity yet and thus cannot be used
   as a copyright owner.
   
   Authors can benefit from making a non-exclusive assignment of
   copyright to the Free Software Foundation. By doing so, the [18]FSF
   gains the legal right to defend the copyright in court.

------------------------------My Comments-----------------------------
   We are concerned that:
     * publishers will not receive the monetary benefit and public
       recognition from their efforts
     * publishers will not use free licenses.

Why are these our major concerns?  Our major objective currently is to
distribute our docs electronically via our mirror sites and via linux
distributions (on CD).  It is not to make more profits for publishers.
What is this about "publishers will not use free licenses"?  Most
publishers don't use any license at all and thus copyright law
(non-free) governs.  We shouldn't expect publishers to use (for works
which they contracted with an author to write) say GFDL (or GNU) since
then anyone else could publish it.

The basic requirement of allowing anyone to make copies and distribute
the documents is not even mentioned in the draft (even for docs which
would go into our "free" section).

   Licenses that do not meet these recommendations are allowed, but
   documents employing these licenses are archived separately under
   "non-free".  

We can't just allow any license (or no license).  Anything we accept
should have a license which permits copying and distribution of the
doc by anyone.  Otherwise people can't get the document or give it to
others.  In fact, if someone comes out with a copyrighted doc with a
null license, they could give it to us but we could not put in on our
site.  Otherwise it could be claimed that we are distributing material
that is not allowed to be distributed under copyright law.  Of course
the copyright holder could sign an agreement permitting us to
distribute it.  In that case we would need to make it known to people
who get copies that they are not allowed to make additional copies.
But I would stongly oppose us accepting such docs in the first place.

What about licenses that say that there is a fee for copying?

At present, it will be no stigma to have a doc in non-free since
almost all our docs are currently in that category because they do not
explicitly require transparent source.  Even if the source is
currently transparent, this must be stated in the license so that
anyone who modifies it retains transparent source.  Thus almost all of
our current docs will need to be put into the non-free section if we
accept the proposed draft.  Perhaps transparency should only be needed
in new docs and in the old ones after say 2 years from now.

     * Content modification must be allowed, although non-modifiable
       parts are permitted

How long may the non-modifiable part be?  Suppose the non-modifiable
part is 95% of the doc.

In short, I think that this section needs to be completly redone and
I'll try to come up with something that conforms to its intent
(although it's not too clear what that was).

			David Lawyer


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org