[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal
David makes a valid argument within his perspective. I would not be able
to argue with it, without making points that would be contrary to that
As I have stated before, I am not in any way against having the more
liberal licenses. I just think that authors should be able to limit
commercial "paper" re-print. I really think this is important for items
such as "Guides".
Either way. I think that we all know how we all feel, so I have taken the
liberty to post this question to our website and ask for feedback from the
users of the LDP.
It has also been posted at http://www.kuro5hin.org and is under heavy
In about a week, I will compile the responses and we can make a decision
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, David Lawyer wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 07:26:47PM -0700, Poet/Joshua Drake wrote:
>> > I will not do so. I think the Open Publication is a good license. I think
>> > that option B (but not A) is an excellent option for corporations and
>> > individuals alike.
>Note that the LDP Manifesto permits the use of option A (but
>discourages it since option A prohibits modification). The LDP
>Manifesto does not allow the use of option B that Poet says is "an
>excellent option". I think that option B is a poor option.
>On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 09:28:51PM -0400, Guylhem Aznar wrote:
>> Yet there is a restriction on commercial reprint.
>> Harmless for the LDP; but not free. We shouldn't restrain people from
>> making money with free software !
>I think it's a good thing to restrain people from making money in some
>cases. For example, if they were making excessive profits from it.
>However, this is not the case for LDP documents since the books
>containing them seem to be low in price.
>If authors sold the rights for commercial reprint, then the price for
>the books would likely be higher even though profits would still be
>made. There are two reasons for higher prices:
>1. The cost of paying the author
>2. The monopoly right to commercially print the document and prohibit
> anyone else from doing so (prohibit competition).
>Permitting the free copying of such works by all tends to keep
>the prices for commercial reprints down and thus benefits the public.
>That's why I support our current policy of rejecting option B, etc.
> David Lawyer
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
<COMPANY>CommandPrompt - http://www.commandprompt.com </COMPANY>
<PROJECT>OpenDocs, LLC. - http://www.opendocs.org </PROJECT>
<PROJECT>LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com </PROJECT>
<WEBMASTER>LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org </WEBMASTER>
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org