Licensing on the wearable howto

Hi,

The wearable HOWTO, located at
http://tldp
.org/HOWTO/Wearable-HOWTO.html, has a section entitled
"Copyright, Disclaimer and Trademarks" which
contains the following
text:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with the
Invariant Sections being : "Foreword", "What
is a Wearable anyway ?",
"Advocacy", "What CPU ?", "Power
supply", "Os.", "The Sulawesi
project.", "CLI only.", "Input",
"Audio Output", "Visual Output",
"Comms.", "How can I have my Wearable
?", "PalmPilot and its clone (
IBM, HandSpring, TRG ): a new breed of wearables.",
"How to carry my
wearable ?", "Applications with Wearables.",
"A borg's life.",
"Nanotechnology: one step beyond.", "Sources
of Information.", "To do
List.", "Revision History.", "Thanks and
Credits.",, with the
Front-Cover Texts being "title" and
"abstract" , and with no
Back-Cover Texts .

This means that all sections of the document are Invariant
Sections.

The GNU FDL says this about Invariant Sections:

A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a
front-matter section of
the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of
the
publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's
overall subject
(or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall
directly
within that overall subject.  (Thus, if the Document is in
part a
textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain
any
mathematics.)  The relationship could be a matter of
historical
connection with the subject or with related matters, or of
legal,
commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position
regarding
them.

The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary
Sections whose titles
are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the
notice
that says that the Document is released under this License. 
If a
section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then
it is not
allowed to be designated as Invariant.  The Document may
contain zero
Invariant Sections.  If the Document does not identify any
Invariant
Sections then there are none.

Since the HOWTO is on wearable computers, then no section
that has
information on wearables can be a Secondary Section. Since
no section
with information on wearable computers can be a Secondary
Section, no
section with information on wearable computers can be an
Invariant
Section. As a consequence, many of the sections named as
Invariant
Sections are not Invariant Sections.

Since this affects the stated licensing of the document, I
wanted to
run it by the list before making the changes. I realize most
people
are not lawyers, but does my reasoning seem sound?

-Abe

______________________
http://lists.tldp.org/

On 12/12/2006 09:48:22 AM, orphreygmail.com wrote:

> The wearable HOWTO,

> Since this affects the stated licensing of the
document, I wanted to
> run it by the list before making the changes. I realize
most people
> are not lawyers, but does my reasoning seem sound?

Yes.  But IMHO the licensing status of a document that
"breaks
the licenses's own rules" is in question.  In other
words, if
it's license is "invalid", is it even licensed at
all?

Karl <kopmeme.com>
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay
forward."
                  -- Robert A. Heinlein


______________________
http://lists.tldp.org/

Wednesday, 13 December 2006 00:48, orphreygmail.com
wrote:
> The wearable HOWTO, located at
> http://tldp
.org/HOWTO/Wearable-HOWTO.html, has a section entitled
> "Copyright, Disclaimer and Trademarks" which
contains the following
> text:
>

...

>
> This means that all sections of the document are
Invariant Sections.

...

> The "Invariant Sections" are certain
Secondary Sections whose titles
> are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections,
in the notice
> that says that the Document is released under this
License.  If a
> section does not fit the above definition of Secondary
then it is not
> allowed to be designated as Invariant.

For lazy readers: The entire licence may be void. My layman 
recommendation is to cease distributing the document until
the author 
agrees on less ambiguous licensing terms.

It's not the first time that the GFDL has been abused in
this manner. 
Even Gnu themselves once managed to mess this up the GDB
documentation. 
It looks like what the Wearable author is looking for is
something like 
CC-by-nd.

Unfortunately, the GFDL is so unclear about what happens in
this 
situation that it is impossible to say with reasonable
certainty which 
parts of the licence, if any, would be upheld.

We are simply told that the designation made is "not
allowed." Even so, 
by provision 4G, modification of such an invalid designation
would be a 
violation of the licence. It is unclear whether provision 4L
applies; 
it may be illegal to distribute translations without them
being 
accompanied by the original sections at all times.

Since the GFDL, unlike the CC licences and most
professionally written 
agreements, does not contain a clause to protect the
remainder of the 
licence in the case of invalidity or unenforceability of a
section, it 
is possible that the whole licence is void and that
redistribution 
beyond what is permissible under general copyright law is
not allowed.

(I am not a laywer; the closest I come is a couple of
introductory law 
units as part of my business degree, one of which dealt with
Australian 
contract law. I have, however, studied the GFDL in depth as
part of 
co-translating it and summarising the criticisms against it
a while 
ago.)

-- 
Alex Nordstrom
http://lx.n3.net/
Please do not CC me in followups;
I am subscribed to the tldp discussion list.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Karl O. Pinc wrote:

>
> On 12/12/2006 09:48:22 AM, orphreygmail.com
wrote:
>
> > The wearable HOWTO,
>
> > Since this affects the stated licensing of the
document, I wanted to
> > run it by the list before making the changes. I
realize most people
> > are not lawyers, but does my reasoning seem sound?
>
> Yes.  But IMHO the licensing status of a document that
"breaks
> the licenses's own rules" is in question.  In
other words, if
> it's license is "invalid", is it even
licensed at all?

Probably the author misunderstood.  Did anybody contact
him/her?

Tille.

- --
Machtelt Garrels                editorsen.tldp.org
Review Coordinator    	 	http://www.tldp.org/auth
ors/

My Penguin, my freedom.         http://tille.xalasys.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFf6WEsIIUbMXbBA8RAgATAJ0XD4hNhknNeab+PWdxqC1gcx7OIQCf
dXu6
PXqA8U7X3l1yzKFbG5TrSaM=
=EvRC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


______________________
http://lists.tldp.org/

> > > The wearable HOWTO,
> >
> > > Since this affects the stated licensing of
the document, I wanted to
> > > run it by the list before making the changes.
I realize most people
> > > are not lawyers, but does my reasoning seem
sound?
> >
> > Yes.  But IMHO the licensing status of a document
that "breaks
> > the licenses's own rules" is in question.  In
other words, if
> > it's license is "invalid", is it even
licensed at all?
>
> Probably the author misunderstood.  Did anybody contact
him/her?
>

I tried several times before taking over maintanership of
the Wearable
HOWTO. There were no responses.

______________________
http://lists.tldp.org/

On 12/13/2006 08:12:05 AM, orphreygmail.com wrote:
>> > Yes.  But IMHO the licensing status of a
document that "breaks
>> > the licenses's own rules" is in question.
 In other words, if
>> > it's license is "invalid", is it
even licensed at all?
>> 
>> Probably the author misunderstood.  Did anybody
contact him/her?
>> 
> 
> I tried several times before taking over maintanership
of the Wearable
> HOWTO. There were no responses.

Sad to say, the author went to some trouble to list sections
as invariant.  IMHO he probably intended that nobody but
himself
maintain the document.  :-(

Karl <kopmeme.com>
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay
forward."
                  -- Robert A. Heinlein


______________________
http://lists.tldp.org/

Quoting Karl O. Pinc (kopmeme.com):

> >I tried several times before taking over
maintanership of the Wearable
> >HOWTO. There were no responses.
> 
> Sad to say, the author went to some trouble to list
sections
> as invariant.  IMHO he probably intended that nobody
but himself
> maintain the document.  :-(

It's unlikely but possible that he'd respond once someone
speaking for
TLDP impresses upon him that it's a problem.


______________________
http://lists.tldp.org/

> Wednesday, 13 December 2006 00:48, orphreygmail.com
wrote:
> > The wearable HOWTO, located at
> > http://tldp
.org/HOWTO/Wearable-HOWTO.html, has a section entitled
> > "Copyright, Disclaimer and Trademarks"
which contains the following
> > text:
> >
> > This means that all sections of the document are
Invariant Sections.
> 
> 
> > The "Invariant Sections" are certain
Secondary Sections whose titles
> > are designated, as being those of Invariant
Sections, in the notice
> > that says that the Document is released under this
License.  If a
> > section does not fit the above definition of
Secondary then it is not
> > allowed to be designated as Invariant.
> 
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:49:59AM +0900, Alex Nordstrom
wrote:
> For lazy readers: The entire licence may be void. My
layman 
> recommendation is to cease distributing the document
until the author 
> agrees on less ambiguous licensing terms.

I would suggest that we keep distributing it until we either
can
locate the author (and get him to fix it), or until a
replacement is
obtained.  Since the author sent it to us with a license
that allows
distribution, and should have known that we distribute docs
sent to
us, I think it's OK to keep distributing it.  The very fact
that he
licensed it under GFDL implies that the author allows it to
be
distributed.

However, it seems to me that it shouldn't be modified, as
that was the
author's intention.  So one can read this and other docs
about the
subject and then write a new howto from scratch.  It's not
allowed to
just paraphrase the existing doc.

			David Lawyer

______________________
http://lists.tldp.org/