[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)
On 28 Sep, Guylhem Aznar wrote:
> This would be really counterproductive and "non free", while a short term
> exclusivity could make it better for anyone.
This is similar to the new MySQL licensing model which I've already
publicly stated I'm not opposed to.
But, I think there is a world of difference between me thinking the
MySQL guys are good guys for finding what I consider to be a pretty
good compromise between existing commercial software marketing and
serving the free software community, and an organisation like the LDP.
The LDP is not a commercial organisation and I don't believe it should
compromise its integrity for limited benefit.
Let the documents join the LDP *after* the publishing company/whoever
has made them free. That I'd be overjoyed with.
Have the LDP accept them before then on the basis that one day they
will be free? I think that's a sellout of principle.
>> This is a little silly to state. Firstly, it's already covered by the
>> notion of a free document. Secondly it's only allowable if the license for
>> the document in question allows it (kinda the same point from another angle)
> But it is not clear enough.
You're suggesting that the existing individual licenses don't state
their terms clearly enough? you propose to fix that, not by ammending
them, but by adding another organisationally imposed, inconsistent,
layer of licensing terms?
> Please submit your ideas to David Lawyer who is working on the
Great, David is someone who I have some confidence in from a licensing
>> Is there any good reason why we can't use the OpenSource Definition?
> Documentation is not software.
Oh please. "In your opinion".
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org