On 6/19/06, Gary Schnabl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
marbux wrote:
> Works for me. But that link to the PPL RTF version doesn't get me
> anything
> but a blank screen in Firefox.
>
No problemo with my Firefox 1.5.0.4. Try reconfiguring it.
Ah, tried again in Konqueror. I wasn't waiting long enough for OOo to
launch and import the file. Works in Firefox 1.7[sumthineruther] too .
But if you are going to be revisiting OOo documentation licensed under the
PPL, I'd recommend cleaning up another problem simultaneously.
The problem, typified by your draft paragraph, is that: [i] all of the OOo
documentation files I have seen link to a blank copy of the license rather
than including it as required by at least three sections of the PPL; and
[ii] many files do not include a completed copy of the notice in the
required form stated in the PDL's Appendix. For ease of reference, the PPL
is here, <http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.rtf>.
>>>
3.0 DISTRIBUTION OBLIGATIONS.
* *3.1. Application of License.
. . .
The Documentation may be distributed only under the terms of this License or
a future version of this License released in accordance with Section
5.0("Versions of the License"), and You must include a copy of this
License
with every copy of the Documentation You distribute.
<<<
* *3.5. Required Notices.
You must duplicate the notice in the Appendix in each file of the
Documentation. If it is not possible to put such notice in a particular
Documentation file due to its structure, then You must include such notice
in a location (such as a relevant directory) where a reader would be likely
to look for such a notice, for example, via a hyperlink in each file of the
Documentation that takes the reader to a page that describes the origin and
ownership of the Documentation. . . .
You must also duplicate this License in any Documentation file (or with a
hyperlink in each file of the Documentation) where You describe recipients'
rights or ownership rights.
<<<
4.0 APPLICATION OF THIS LICENSE.
This License applies to Documentation to which the Initial Writer has
attached this License and the notice in the Appendix.
<<<
I believe these sections are self-explanatory, but here are a few salient
points that should make anyone take pause before choosing to keep a copy of
the documentation:
First, sections 3.1 and 4.0 mean the license never becomes effective --
there is no right of copying or distribution whatsoever --- unless the
license and the required notice are "attached" to or "included" in the
documentation. If not so attached or included, the PPL never becomes
applicable and the author's copyright therefore reverts to the default under
the Berne treaty; no license is granted.
Second, under section 3.5, the linking rather than inclusion of the
completed *notice* is permissible ONLY "[i]f it is not possible to put such
notice in a particular Documentation file due to its structure." I suspect
that provision was intended to allow creation of context-sensitive Help
files. Certainly it creates no excuse for not including the required
information in a documentation PDF file.
Third, under section 3.5, linking to a notice is only proper where the link
is to "a page that describes the origin and ownership of the Documentation.
" Linking to a blank copy of the PDL and its Appendix does not provide the
required "origin and ownership" information. See also section 1.9 ("'Original
Documentation' means documentation described as Original Documentation in
the notice required by the Appendix").
The above interpretation does not mean that arguments could not be made for
a contrary position. But I believe, with some experience, that it is the
interpretation a court would adopt, forcing those who argue for a license
having been created to rely primarily on equitable principles such as
waiver, estoppel, and implication rather than on the language of the
license.
Also, note that if any modifications to documentation are made by anyone
other than the copyright owner, sections 1.10, 3.2, and 3.3 kick in. Boiled
down, those sections require that a contributor's modifications be
maintained in editable, publicly available form. Section 3.3, read together
with the other two sections cited above, seems to suggest that a device such
as a wiki that tracks the history of edits was in the PDL drafter's mind for
maintaining modifications in editable form and required change notices. ("The
foregoing change documentation may be created by using an electronic program
that automatically tracks changes to the Documentation, and such changes
must be available publicly for at least five years following release of the
changed Documentation.")
