From: David Alan Black <dblack@...>
Date: 2002-07-02T22:33:51+09:00
Subject: RE: documentation licenses (was: eruby SAFE question)

Hi --

On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 james@rubyxml.com wrote:

> > From: David Alan Black [mailto:dblack@candle.superlink.net]
> >
> > But the OPL *does* restrict you.  It says that unmodified AND MODIFIED
> > versions (where "modified" explicitly includes translations) have to
> > include the paragraph I quoted before.  You released a modified
> > version (as defined by the OPL), but omitted that paragraph.  Nothing
> > you have posted to this list has included a single syllable of
> > explanation of this.
>
> If a modified work is restricted by the terms of the OPL, I don't see how
> simply asserting otherwise would make it any less true.
>
> In other words, if I translate the pickaxe book into Swahili, publish it on
> a website, and then claim that the work is now under a completely private
> copyright, it wouldn't be true simply because *I said so*.  Wouldn't people
> be justified in mirroring the modified work, with the copyright and
> licensing information changed to the correct version?

I certainly think so.  My view of the Katins translation is that it
is, in reality, covered by the OPL -- but is in violation of its
license because it excludes the required language (and further
confuses the matter by sticking in language from a different,
irrelevant license).  If this view is right, then mirrors really
should go ahead and correct the error, rather than perpetuate it.

Care would have to be taken in the matter of copyright wording (as
distinct from license wording).  I don't know whether there's any
legal merit in Katins's claim to have some kind of copyright interest
in the translation -- but that question is orthogonal to the question
of what's required by the OPL, so the basic act of restoring the OPL
would, in my opinion, be appropriate.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav