[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Voila! A compromise!
- To: jdd <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Voila! A compromise!
- From: David Lawyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:36:34 -0700
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <00080411421205.00829@charles>
- Mail-followup-to: jdd <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- References: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20000801154406.A137@localhost> <200008032149.PAA25018@wijiji.santafe.edu> <00080411421205.00829@charles>
- Resent-date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 23:37:41 -0400 (EDT)
- Resent-from: email@example.com
- Resent-message-id: <lEwJsC.A.hXE._w4i5@murphy>
- Resent-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-agent: Mutt/1.0pre3i
> Le jeu, 03 aoû 2000, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> > One can imagine another plan, which is to segregate the non-free
> > documents, and keep on accepting non-free documents on the same
> > conditions as before. I think it would be foolish for the LDP to
> > accept any non-free documents, but I already explained why so I won't
> > repeat it.
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 11:33:21AM +0200, jdd wrote:
> I think we (LDP) should not be as hard configured. I think we should
> strongly recommend the free license, but still accept non-free docs in a
> segregated category. They may be some circumstances where free doc is not
> possible. Imagine a book editor gives us the right to add they books to
> the ldp stock, I could understand they restrict the printing right.
I don't think it would be a good idea to change our policy and begin to
accept documents that restrict commercial printing (except by one
company). What may happen is that they will first come out with the
print copy, and then when it's a few months old give it to us. We
want to have the latest docs, not old stuff.
If an author of an LDP document wants to sell it to a publisher and
restrict others from getting it, they can always do so by changing
their license. The terms of the license don't apply to the author
since the license is a contract between the author and the person who
gets the document. The rights and restrictions in the license apply
to the recipient of the document, not to the author. This is true for
GPL and all other "open" license that I know of.
Can an author include in a license, a promise on his part to always
keep the license free? Probably not since the courts have ruled that
one can't make a contract with the public at large. A case where a
politician made promises to the public which he didn't keep was ruled
not to be a breech of contract. Of course such a promise would have
moral suasion for if one broke this promise they could be criticized
for doing so but couldn't be held legally accountable.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org