[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)
> He's a short sum up :
> - the document must be released under a free license (with details in
> the new manifesto, a license guide, and a set of license)
> - the document must be freely redistributable and printable, but short
> exclusivity (less than 1 year) can be given for initial publication
> - the author must accept, if he can't be reached for more than 2 month
> or if he ever decides to stop maintaining his document, that someone
> else will be given the right to maintain his document (while
> acknowledging previous author of course) under the same license
> Not only must we write free documentation, but we must also ensure it
> will remain free and available.
So an author takes a three month sabbatical and loses control of his/her
document? No thanks.
Look, you're taking one problem and creating another to solve it. If I
want to maintain control of my document (while still allowing free
redistribution and such), the LDP shouldn't exclude me from making my
work available to it. It is better to have that work available until
the author goes away and it has to be removed than to never have that
work at all, and that's the situation you've made for yourself. *I*
am an example of an author who would *not* put his work under such a
license (and thus have it included in the LDP) if that were a
So, which is it? Lose documents, or ensure that the ones you have you
will always have? Again, I think the current situation has served us
fine. Which document are we going to have to remove because the author
can't be reached?
Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com firstname.lastname@example.org "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 email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org