On Sat, Apr 17, 1999 at 04:51:26AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
[...]
Hi I can try to make a brief summary of the discussion inside
debian-legal on the licence of the guides of linux documentation
project.
First of all you can find the licences of the guides
at www.edu.ph.unito.it/~andrea
1) on tue 12 apr 1999 i have posted the following mail
on debian-legal:
--- my mail---
Hi all, i'm working for the package of LDP linux
documentation project.
I have package:
1)linux installation and getting started guide (3.2) that is under gpl,
2) italian translation of system admin guide (author lars wirzenius - gpl)
3) linux modules programming guide (under gpl)
these three book are reasonably DFSG compliant.
Now I have to package the other guides (user guide,
network guide, kernel guide etc. etc.). this books
are under the licence of ldp... and I need a
definitive opinion: the licence of linux documentation project
is or not DFSG compliant ?
--- end of my first mail---
and I have received the following answers:
*****
John Hasler:
The _Linux Programmers Guide_ is non-free because its license contains
this: "If you make money with it the authors want a share."
The LDP license is free except for the prohibition on derivatives. IMHO
this should be permitted but deprecated, but others do not agree.
The _Linux Kernel_ license is the same as the LDP one.
BTW the LDP license contradicts itself somewhat in that it forbids
derivatives while permitting partial copies.
*******
*****
Jonathan P Tomer <phouchg@cif.rochester.edu> :
haven't read it myself, but does it prohibit derivatives or modifications
from the original? it could mean you may distribute parts of the document
verbatim, with nothing added. still probably not what the authors wanted,
but a bit more sensical.
****
and then:
*****
John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> answering to jonathan:
> that doesn't seem very binding to me.
It could mean "If you should happen to make any money with it the authors
would greatly appreciate receiving some small share" or it could mean "If
you make any money with it the authors damn well *WANT* some of it". Would
you care to go to court to find out which?
> haven't read it myself, but does it prohibit derivatives or modifications
> from the original?
It prohibits derivatives and then goes on to say that you may publish
partial copies. The trouble is, as far as copyright is concerned, the only
part of a derivative that matters is the partial copy it contains.
> it could mean you may distribute parts of the document verbatim, with
> nothing added. still probably not what the authors wanted, but a bit more
> sensical.
I think that what they want is to forbid derivatives in which the
boundaries of their work are not clearly demarcated. They should have said
so.
***
and Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> answering to john:
*****
> It prohibits derivatives and then goes on to say that you may publish
> partial copies. The trouble is, as far as copyright is concerned, the
> only
> part of a derivative that matters is the partial copy it contains.
However, as far as contract law is concerned, I'd think I could validly
offer you the privilege of making partial copies of my work, in return
for a promise not to add anything to said partial copies?
Of course whether you have accepted my offer or not would be a
somewhat open issue, but that only gives you the choice between
being sued over unauthorized copying or breach of contract.
*******
and john answering to Makholm:
****
> However, as far as contract law is concerned, I'd think I could validly
> offer you the privilege of making partial copies of my work, in return
> for a promise not to add anything to said partial copies?
Right, but I think you need to be clear about it. Saying "no derivatives"
in one paragraph and "partial copies are permitted" in another isn't good
enough. Must I put each partial copy alone in a file (or alone on a sheet
of paper)? That isn't very useful. Would it be ok to set off and label
the partial copies so that my work and yours are clearly separated? That is
probably what they mean, but it isn't what they have said.
****
Then I wrote to the list:
***
hi I have decided to put the linux kernel and the user guide
in main and the linux programmer guide in non-free ...
it is right or not ?
*******
and received this answer:
***
I have decided to put the linux kernel and the user guide in main and
> the linux programmer guide in non-free ...
> it is right or not ?
I think so, if I remember correctly which had which license.
****
I have also received this email specially for the network
guide from Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
****
Hello Andrea,
I wondered why these great docs weren't packaged. They were even
in Slackware years ago when I used that!
So I decided to package it. I looked at it and decided that HTML
would be best, but couldn't find the tools to build them. I
email the author (see below) but never got a reply :-(
In any case, I don't think it's non-free since it is
documentation and not software.
****
Now if I have understood the programmer guide is sure a non-free
but the others guide are DFSG complaint ( but deprecated).
Well, your opinion :-) ?
I hope that my summary of the discussion is sufficiently clear ...
Best regards
Andrea Fanfani
--
Andrea Fanfani
andrea@debian.org
andrea@linux.it
fanfani@edu.ph.unito.it
Attachment:
pgpk989tSAVnS.pgp
Description: PGP signature