Re: Future licence suggestions (was : License problem in Ubuntu Desktop Guide)

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 20:57 +0200, karderio wrote:
> Hi :o)
> 
> On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 11:16 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> > In the end, maybe we should
> > just switch to a license that people hate less.
> 
> I have been pondering documentation licences since the beginning of this
> thread, considering a possible change looming in the future. One idea
> keeps coming back to me : why not release our docs to the public
> domain ?
> 
> I don't see why we would mind what people do with our docs - even if
> they take them and publish them as a copyrighted book, it could only be
> to our advantage... Of course we loose any modifications that authors do
> not give us...

I fear non-copyleft licenses for documentation work, not
just because we *lose* (what list is this, anyway?) any
modifications created by others, but because it can be
difficult to incorporate their ideas without being in
violation of copyright law.

Consider software for a moment.  People who write free
software are often advised not to look at the source
code of comparable non-free software.  This is because
seeing the source taints you.  It becomes difficult to
establish that you didn't use copyrighted ideas in your
own software.

Take that to documentation, or any copyrighted prose.
The copyrighted material, the stuff that matters, is
exactly what you're reading.  It's not the markup in
DocBook or HTML or Postscript.  The courts don't care
if you have the same angle brackets.

In documentation, viewing the results is tantamount
to viewing the source.  Thus, simply reading non-free
derivative works can taint you.  It's a non-trivial
task to incorporate the ideas ("Oh yeah, we really
should have explained what that checkbox means") in
the derivative work without using wording that is
suspiciously close to that of the derivative work.

I, for one, don't so much care what people do with
my work.  But I do care if derivative works create
a significant barrier to me making improvements to
my own work.

What I would really like is a very simple copyleft
license.  I don't care about revision history or
order of authorship or transmission medium, insofar
as it is made clear that the original authors are
not responsible for all the content, particularly
when some of the content is opinionated.

  Mallard Free License

  You can copy this document and share it with other
  people.  You can modify this document and share your
  modifications, provided:

    1) The modified work is also under the MFL, and
    2) If you have made substantial changes (beyond
       those of a typical copy editor), you list
       yourself as an additional author, so it is
       clear the original authors are not responsible
       for all the content.

  Knowledge wants to be free.  Inanimate objects like
  to be anthropomorphized.  Please, don't be a prick.

This is maybe too simple.  In the publishing world,
whenever there are multiple authors, it is assumed
that each author has at least reviewed and signed
off on all the content.  This is clearly not the
case with all modified works, and maybe that should
be addressed.

Then again, every time a new documentation person
takes a crack at something in CVS, we clearly have
a non-original-author making modifications.  Maybe
we need to distinguish between modified works in
a canonical upstream location and forks by outside
entities.

Or maybe that's too much hassle, and maybe we should
just use CC-BY-SA.  Anybody know any free lawyers?

--
Shaun