discuss: Adverts on LDP mirrors
Subject:
Re: [discuss] Adverts on LDP mirrors
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
4 Dec 2008 08:40:38 +0000
Message-Id: <49379746.9010604@lafn.org>
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
>
> Hi, David. I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint, and don't want to leave
> the impression I'm happy about LDP mirrors sometimes being festooned
> with advertising. However, since you asked a question in my approximate
> direction (albeit one you might have intended to be rhetorical ;-> ):
>
>> Isn't it freedom to be able to read a free doc without interference from
>> ads?
>
> Absolutely: This is why genuinely free-licensed documentation includes
> the (quite vital) freedom to gain a copy of that documentation from
> anywhere desired, to strip off advertising and damned near anything else
> you don't like, to read, to enjoy, and (if you wish) to republish it the
> manner you prefer it.
I think that most people who are looking for help on the Internet just plan
on only reading a page or two. It they search on the Internet and find
something with annoying ads, it may be more expedient to just put up with it
than to start searching again for something with no advertising. And they
may not even know that copies do exist without advertising. If you are
only going to spend a few minutes looking at it, it's usually not
worthwhile to spend more time looking for another ad-free copy.
>
> The point being that the presence of advertising on some (many?) LDP
> mirrors does _not_ remove that freedom, your implication notwithstanding.
The main problem is the non-mirrors which likely cause more harm from stale
documents than with their ads.
>
>> I think we need a new definition of free documentation to allow
>> prohibition of displaying it with annoying advertising.
>
> As I said, I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint, _but_ you should be aware
> that that conception of "free" _will_ be summarily rejected by anyone who
> applies any of the three commonly accepted yardsticks for free / open
> source. That has nothing to do with the contents or merits of your
> views or mine; it's just a fact that it is (in my view) important to
> understand.
I'm well aware of this, but some will rethink the "yardsticks".
>
> I think that LDP desires to not have its documentation be immediately
> classified as proprietary.
With a lot of time and effort, I think it might succeed and bring favorable
recognition to LDP. But I personally don't have time to pursue it.
