discuss: new documentation license
Subject:
Re: new documentation license
From:
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
Date:
24 Nov 2003 02:26:19 -0000
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20031123194024.025c40b8@mail.simpaticus.com>
At 00:07 11/23/2003, David Lawyer wrote:
>I think that LDP needs to create it's own license again. This will take
>up a lot of time partly because I would like to see one that will
>prevent abuse of documentation.
Can you define abuse somehow?
>It would prohibit advertising being displayed online with the documents
Why on Earth would you want that provision? If I put such a clause in my
license, then the LDP gets a sponsor for banners on the site, then
automatically the LDP cannot use my document. And hey, what if I have a
copy of the HOWTO on my site (which I do) and then to pay for hosting fees
I decide to put a banner on each page? Why is this a bad thing? (And hey...
why is it anybody's business?)
>and have some requirement about labeling stale versions as such.
Hmm... again, define "stale".
>Also, I think that there should be options for our license, one of which
>would be to prohibit modification unless the author can't be readily
>located or isn't maintaining the doc.
For whom is this "optional"? And who has to respect that requirement (if
and when it goes from an option to a requirement)?
>In the past, debates about our license became almost flame wars
But now we are all going to behave maturely and have a reasoned, reasonable
debate that actually gets something done, right? (Everybody nod your head.)
>One debate [...] Complicated. There were hundreds of posts.
>[...] other heated debates were reported about the LDP license.
>[...] but I guess the history was never done.
Wow. And did the license ever get done? I'm guessing not.
But now, we are all going to focus on getting something done, right?
(Everybody nod again.)
Let me know if I can help. I'll be following the "license" thread.
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
