1 |
wireless posted on Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:19:58 -0500 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 11/29/11 08:01, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> I don't consider this as a "problem" per se, so I don't think we need |
6 |
>> to put much effort in these things. Licenses evolve; documents too. |
7 |
>> Eventually, old(er) documents will be replaced with newer ones anyhow. |
8 |
>> And it is not that the 2.5 license has a major issue for us - it's just |
9 |
>> that 3.0 is somewhat newer and used on the wiki. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> This issue is even simpler than that. Just assume the authors (owners?) |
12 |
> are not going to say anything. If one or 2 do, resolve the issue |
13 |
> individually, or pull the doc. After all, when was the last time there |
14 |
> was an issue of this sort? |
15 |
|
16 |
Adding to swift/SV's reply, as he said, the laws don't work like that, |
17 |
and we /really/ don't want to go there, even if we /might/ /arguably/ be |
18 |
able to get away with it for some or all of the docs. |
19 |
|
20 |
And addressing the "last time there was an issue of this sort" question, |
21 |
there was a bit (well, potentially more than a bit, but it was resolved |
22 |
before it went nuclear) of a hubbub around a document with some major |
23 |
work by a former dev, some years ago. In that case, it was simply that |
24 |
he had been taken out of the "authors" list at the top/side, while still |
25 |
credited in a footnote along with all the other contributors, the |
26 |
reasoning behind the action being that for layout reasons, it made more |
27 |
sense to put the current primary contact up at the top, with the rest of |
28 |
the contributors still acknowledged but that acknowledgment moved |
29 |
elsewhere. |
30 |
|
31 |
I believe the issue was resolved by essentially reverting the change. |
32 |
|
33 |
But given the hubbub that caused when it was simply moving a name |
34 |
around... no, we don't want to TOUCH the whole license change without |
35 |
explicit permission thing, and I'd argue, rightly so. As ESR pointed out |
36 |
quite effectively in his cathedral and the bazaar series of essays and |
37 |
book, the FLOSS community functions as a meritocratic gifting society, |
38 |
with the primary currency being respect based on acknowledge |
39 |
contributions to the community, and anything that messes with that |
40 |
acknowledgment and respect is, in effect, either robbery or community |
41 |
currency manipulation. For some people, therefore, changing such things |
42 |
without direct permission is akin to robbing them at gunpoint, not a |
43 |
small matter, indeed, and even if you believe the ESR stuff is all a |
44 |
bunch of hooey, recognizing the value some others in the community place |
45 |
on it can in practice save quite some community controversy at best, or |
46 |
ultimately, legal trouble if it goes nuclear! |
47 |
|
48 |
(I deliberately avoided names and explicit detail as it's long settled |
49 |
now tho the issue remains a sensitive one for some, so no need to drag |
50 |
out the details, but they're available in the gentoo list archives. |
51 |
Additionally, the historic details aren't apropos for current list |
52 |
discussion, so please take anything further on that line offlist.) |
53 |
|
54 |
-- |
55 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
56 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
57 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |