192 lines
7.4 KiB
HTML
192 lines
7.4 KiB
HTML
<!-- MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
|
|
<!--X-Subject: Re: Copyrights, plagiarism and other nonsense -->
|
|
<!--X-From-R13: Rna Epbgg <qna.fpbggNnpz.bet> -->
|
|
<!--X-Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 07:08:58 -0500 (EST) -->
|
|
<!--X-Message-Id: 20001127071116.A1197@RAPD144.torolab.ibm.com -->
|
|
<!--X-Content-Type: text/plain -->
|
|
<!--X-Head-End-->
|
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML//EN">
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>Re: Copyrights, plagiarism and other nonsense</title>
|
|
<link rev="made" href="mailto:dan.scott@acm.org">
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<!--X-Body-Begin-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Header-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Header-End-->
|
|
<!--X-TopPNI-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
[<a href="msg04493.html">Date Prev</a>][<a href="msg04495.html">Date Next</a>][<a href="msg04489.html">Thread Prev</a>][<a href="msg04495.html">Thread Next</a>][<a href="maillist.html#04494">Date Index</a>][<a href="threads.html#04494">Thread Index</a>]
|
|
<!--X-TopPNI-End-->
|
|
<!--X-MsgBody-->
|
|
<!--X-Subject-Header-Begin-->
|
|
<h1>Re: Copyrights, plagiarism and other nonsense</h1>
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Subject-Header-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Head-of-Message-->
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><em>To</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org">ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>Subject</em>: Re: Copyrights, plagiarism and other nonsense</li>
|
|
<li><em>From</em>: Dan Scott <<A HREF="mailto:dan.scott@acm.org">dan.scott@acm.org</A>></li>
|
|
<li><em>Date</em>: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 07:11:16 -0500</li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-date</em>: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 07:08:58 -0500 (EST)</li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-from</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-message-id</em>: <YDEw-B.A.9lG.C-kI6@murphy></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-sender</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>User-agent</em>: Mutt/1.2.5i</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<!--X-Head-of-Message-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Body-of-Message-->
|
|
<pre>
|
|
At least I tried to move it to "discuss" (it bounced. sigh.)
|
|
|
|
Dan
|
|
|
|
----- Forwarded message from Dan Scott <dan.scott@acm.org> -----
|
|
|
|
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:52:03 -0500 (EST)
|
|
From: Dan Scott <dan.scott@acm.org>
|
|
To: David Lloyd <lloy0076@rebel.net.au>
|
|
cc: Jesse Goerz <jgoerz@linuxfreemail.com>, <discuss@linuxdoc.org>
|
|
Subject: Re: Copyrights, plagiarism and other nonsense
|
|
In-Reply-To: <<a href="msg04489.html">3A207E13.C630EC10@rebel.net.au</a>>
|
|
X-Keywords:
|
|
X-UID: 57
|
|
|
|
(I moved my answer to the new "discuss" forum.)
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, David Lloyd wrote:
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
> Jesse!
|
|
>
|
|
> > 1. All the documents must be in a single format which is easily convertible
|
|
> > to many others. If the author does not wish to write in this format then a
|
|
> > "maintainer" should be appointed to convert the document from the author's
|
|
> > chosen format to the LDP format.
|
|
>
|
|
> That is what is supposed to happen.
|
|
>
|
|
> > 2. If the author is not willing to publish under the LDP's copyright they
|
|
> > can publish elsewhere. If necessary, develop several licenses which allow
|
|
> > differing levels of "protection."
|
|
> >
|
|
> > If the LDP does not protect itself by requiring the authors to use it's
|
|
> > copyright then it will eventually be a collection of untouchable, out of date
|
|
> > documents. If authors feel these copyrights are to loose then perhaps said
|
|
> > authors should reexamine their intentions for publishing to the LDP and
|
|
> > consider publishing elsewhere.
|
|
> >
|
|
> > Yes. It is that simple.
|
|
>
|
|
> I can only say - and very laconically - that I agree. It is really
|
|
> simple isn't it?
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
Except, of course, that it isn't that simple, because copyright and
|
|
licenses are two different and complementary things. The way I read
|
|
Jesse's proposal, all documents would have to be published under the LDP's
|
|
copyright. I'm not the most knowledgeable person on the subject, but I
|
|
believe that we can issue a single document that is copyrighted by the
|
|
author, but distributed with a license that allows others to redistribute
|
|
/ modify / assume maintenance of the document if it falls into disrepair.
|
|
I think the normal thing to do in this case is to make the copyrights
|
|
cumulative, no? So we would have "Original document copyright <author>
|
|
<date>, modifications and extensions copyright <author2> <date2>", right?
|
|
|
|
Of course, I am biased, since the copyright to "my" DB2-HOWTO is actually
|
|
held by IBM, while the DB2-HOWTO itself is licensed under the GPL.
|
|
Clearly, IBM benefits from this relationship with the LDP: they get to
|
|
provide up-to-date information about one of their products for Linux in
|
|
the de facto collection of Linux documentation. What does the LDP get?
|
|
Well, the right to use the DB2-HOWTO as the basis for an Oracle HOW-TO (if
|
|
a couple of excellent ones didn't already exist), other database HOWTOs,
|
|
or really any HOWTO that focuses on complex installation information; I
|
|
think the Docbook markup is an acceptable example for new authors; and
|
|
(last and definitely least) the LDP may get some small benefit from my
|
|
personal participation in activities like converting HTML-based docs to
|
|
Docbook, or fixing up little Docbook formatting glitches...
|
|
|
|
Most importantly, though, the Linux user interested in installing DB2 on
|
|
Linux benefits from finding the docs they need in the location they expect
|
|
to find authoritative information. And if for some reason I stop
|
|
maintaining the DB2-HOWTO, and don't pass the mantle on to someone else at
|
|
IBM, and inexplicably go incommunicado, the LDP has the right to keep on
|
|
distributing the DB2-HOWTO and let some other interested party become the
|
|
maintainer to ensure that the doc remains up to date. All that, without
|
|
the original copyright belonging to the LDP, but enabled by licensing the
|
|
document.
|
|
|
|
Now, if you proposed that all submitted documents must be licensed using
|
|
one of the licenses accepted by the LDP, I would fully agree. And I think
|
|
that's the position of the LDP in general. It's just that the category of
|
|
licenses acceptable to the LDP is the subject of continuing, and somewhat
|
|
circular, debate.
|
|
|
|
Dan
|
|
|
|
> DL
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Dan Scott,
|
|
Friend of the abnormal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
----- End forwarded message -----
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Dan Scott,
|
|
Friend of the abnormal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
|
|
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
</pre>
|
|
|
|
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
|
|
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<ul><li><strong>Follow-Ups</strong>:
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="04495" href="msg04495.html">Removable medias</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> Sebastian Konstanty Zdrojewski <zdrojewski@skzservices.com></li></ul></li>
|
|
</ul></li></ul>
|
|
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
|
|
<!--X-References-->
|
|
<!--X-References-End-->
|
|
<!--X-BotPNI-->
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Prev by Date:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg04493.html">Linux NetMeeting HOWTO</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Next by Date:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg04495.html">Removable medias</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Previous by thread:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg04489.html">Re: Copyrights, plagiarism and other nonsense</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Next by thread:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg04495.html">Removable medias</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Index(es):
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="maillist.html#04494"><strong>Date</strong></a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="threads.html#04494"><strong>Thread</strong></a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Footer-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|