[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Licensing issues
> > The problem with NOT contacting the author directly is that changing the
> > document without the authors permission is often copyright infringement.
> That's one reason why we need that all LDP documents are absolutely
> free. The documents must allow modifications (with the usual
> disclaimers of non-endorsing etc, and maybe with an exception about
> non-techinal parts, but this is controversial, as already noted on
> this list -- or was it the older one?).
>From your own paragraph above you note that there are reasons to *not*
allow modification to a document (or at least part of it) yet you still
assert that all docs should be freely modifiable. This is silly.
Folks, look. This has been beaten to death here and on many other
mailing lists. Documentation is not software. Sure, in some cases it
is *like* software when folks are collaborating to work on it. Most
of the time that is *not* the case, however. Where it is the case,
folks can certainly license their docs so that they are modifiable if
But I assert there are plenty of valid reasons that people may *not*
want their document modified, and there is NO REASON that the LDP should
enforce that LDP docs be modifiable. The current manifesto outlines
that they must be redistributable, and I think this is the only reasonable
real restriction we need to place on the LDP authors.
I don't care to go into the debate on why we need to avoid this *again*.
Suffice it to say that documentation IS NOT software. Leave people the
ability to choose and let the LDP have the most useful documentation it
can reasonably have.
Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com email@example.com "Bah."
Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. V.
Bats, when dipped in batter and deep fried, still taste pretty bad.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com