[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd))
- Subject: RE: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd))
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 07:53:33 -0500
- Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
- Resent-Date: 29 Sep 1999 12:53:54 -0000
- Resent-Message-ID: <D_GIJD.A.PnC.evg83@murphy>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 7:31 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re:
> revision of site (fwd))
> We don't have to remove them unless we want to. This is because the
> license permits free distribution and it can't be revoked
> except by legal
> means such as a court order or by a termination clause in the
> (There's no termination clause in these, I've checked). The
> license is a
> contract which in this case is between the author and the LDP
> (or between
> the author and Tim Bynum if you want to argue that the LDP is
> not a legal
> entity). Now anyone who has a copy may make copies and give
> them away.
> That's what we're (or Tim) is doing by putting it at Metalab.
> However, the author is not required to maintain it (unless he
> agreed to
> do so in the license which he didn't). Can someone else
> maintain it?
> They could if the license said anyone could modify it. The
> license in
> these docs is exactly the same license that Tim Bynum uses for his
> HOWTO-INDEX (which he wrote). The paragraph on "derivative
> works" says
> that derivative works must use the same license (Tim called it a
> "copyright notice"). This seems to imply that permission to
> make derived
> works has been granted even though it doesn't state this explicitly.
>From the LDP Manifesto page:
"Any translation or derived work must be approved by the author in writing
In this case, distribution could mean electronic distribution - which means
the LDP wouldn't have the right to post a derived work without the author's
permission. Of course, since the LDP doesn't have a consistent license,
there's no telling which pieces of the LDP could, or couldn't, be updated -
unless you want to examine each piece separately. Some of the more vocal
people on this list have the position that a consistent license would make
it more difficult to work with the LDP.
The fact this topic of conversation is even brought up makes me think
differently. After all, if the overall goal of the LDP is to provide
high-quality, free information, then the ability to update and maintain
content easily, and without fear of legal action, is of utmost importance.
The LDP needs to put rules in place to ensure this happens. If authors don't
want to play by whatever rules the LDP comes up with, then they should post
their material elsewhere.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com