[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal
>You are right, author should be able to make money from their documents.
>But not at the expense of making non free documents.
>Maybe we should try to find a way for our authors to get a compensation
>for the time and energy they spend writing free docs?
>I would support a "public service" scheme, where linux distributions,
>publisher, would give money to the LDP authors as an acknowledgement of
>their effort, but without any obligation.
This is actually not a bad idea, and is the part of the idea behind the
Open Source Documentation Fund, that was started by OpenDocs Publishing.
My main point, among all of this -- is the financial capabilities of the
authors. I don't think that anyone could argue that we would receive
better quality documentation "if" people could take the time to make it
part of their living.
I am not saying that we have bad docs now (ok some are bad) but we have a
lot of talented people that could do a lot more if they could "afford" to.
Something else to think about... The 4 major players in the Linux industry
(retail wise), RedHat, Mandrake, Corel, and Suse all have licenses on
their documentation that is either the OPL or something very similar. I
have to double check Corel and Suse but I know RedHat and Mandrake are
<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