FAQ: Legal Issues

Q: Is there any relationship between LINMO and the concept of free software?

A: Yes, there is some similarity between the LINMO (linked information modules) concept and free software. Most significantly, both are intended primarily to benefit the general public. They do this by promoting the development and availability of high quality work. A large part of availability is maximizing freedom for users. And a large part of freedom is freedom in a monetary sense; that is, that the work should be available to everyone at no cost. Also, both place some minimal restrictions on the freedom of use for the benefit of the majority of users. However, there are necessarily also some major differences.

Q: What are the differences?

A: One difference between free software and the LINMO concept is that free software requires a certain type of license in order to encourage people to contribute to it in order that it might become successful, such as the GNU General Public License (GPL) or a BSD-style license. However, other types of work, such as LINMO-compatible web sites, hard copy (i.e., printed on paper) books and works of art (e.g., paintings, sculptures and symphonies), do not, because of the very different development process, particular the fact that they are primarily single-author works.

A second difference is that restrictions are necessary on the copying and republishing of content in order to avoid what might be termed the copied content proliferation problem. This is the situation in which content licensed under so-called free content licenses is copied from the primary site and used on perhaps dozens of other sites which do not improve or extend the content but which are cluttered with advertisements. A major disadvantages resulting from such copies is the turning up of numerous sites with identical content when a person is searching for a topic using a search engine, thereby wasting that person's time and making it more tedious to find pages with original content. Such copies also violate the rules of usability, which are fundamental to the LINMO concept. Another disadvantage is that such copies might not contain corrections and updates that are made to the original content. The goals of the free documentation licenses are noble, but it is questionable as to how beneficial they really are in many cases.

Q: What is the best type of licensing for LINMO-compatible web sites?

A: In general, no special licensing is required. That is, the content is copyrighted by its creator just as is the case with of hard copy books, paintings, photographs and ordinary web pages. Because the content is on the web, everyone can view and study it to any extent desired. Moreover, the fair use doctrine of copyright permits anyone to print hard copies of individual pages for personal use and permits teachers to print multiple copies for classroom use. As is the case with conventional books and other web sites, people and organizations are prohibited from incorporating the content into their own works or redistributing it without written permission from the copyright owner.

Q: Wouldn't it be better if the material were instead placed in the public domain or released under a more liberal license such as the GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License) so that everyone could use it for any desired purpose, that is, making it truly free in the spirit of free software?

A: There are some very good reasons for not doing this, and there is likely little to be gained by doing it. One is that the content is already extremely free. It is much more free than most hard copy books in the sense that it can be accessed at no cost anywhere in the world that even a minimal quality Internet connection is available. There is no expensive book to buy, and it is not necessary to travel to a library. A hard copy book with comparable content could easily cost a hundred dollars or more.

A second reason is that allowing anyone to incorporate the content into their own work would likely result in a proliferation of the content on low quality sites that reduce its usefulness or accuracy without users being aware of it. Such sites might, for example, change or remove some of the content, fail to update it, remove some links (which are integral to the integrity of the content of a well-constructed LINMO-compatible site), or be cluttered with unnecessary graphics and advertising. In fact, this has already happened to the content of some web sites that allow anyone to modify and republish their content, and thus it has become a major source of irritation on the web. Keeping the content on a single site and under control of the original developer assures users that they are getting the real thing.

A third reason is that restricting the content to a single site makes it easier to attract organizations to sponsor (but without annoying banner ads, etc.) the site in order to help offset some of the high cost of development and to help assure further improvements to the site.

Q: Is anyone permitted to use the LINMO model and resulting site design and appearance, or is it restricted by some means such as copyrights or patents?

A: Anyone is permitted to use the model and the accompanying guidelines as well as the same general appearance for the creation of non-commercial web sites (i.e., sites that do not contain advertising and which are not selling a good or service); in the case of commercial sites, they can be used under a licence from Bellevue Linux. The documentation regarding the model, including this page and all other text on this site, is copyrighted, and thus it is subject to the normal restrictions imposed by copyright.