discuss: new documentation license
Subject:
Re: new documentation license
From:
Frank Lichtenheld ####@####.####
Date:
24 Nov 2003 13:47:31 -0000
Message-Id: <20031124134726.GA838@djpig.de>
On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 07:52:08PM -0800, Tabatha Marshall wrote:
> I agree that the LDP should have its own license, one that is as
> protective as OPL but designed for our organization and authors, more
> comprehensive than the current LDP license - but something that will be
> acceptable, and meet everyone's needs. I'd be curious to hear feedback
> from makers of the distros on whether they'd consider such a proposed
> proviso in the license to be free or non-free. We obviously wouldn't
> want to alienate anyone out of carrying the collection.
Hmm, from a fully personal view (but from the perpective of a maintainer
of documents in Debian and not from the perspective of a author) I would
say: Just Don't Do It.
Don't include ldp procedures in the licence. Why would you do this?
Make a "policy", "guidelines" or something like this. If you choose
a "free" licence, this is no problem, because modifications by anyone
are allowed. So you just have to decide when to include modifications
by people other than the original author _in ldp_. But this has nothing
to do with the licence.
A "free" licence after all definitions I know
never includes a requirement to contact the original author before
redistributing.
Redistributing of modified versions without any restrictions is one of
the core points of every definitions of a free licence. Don't touch
this, then you have no problems with forking, overtaking and reviewing
documents.
There is a lot of collections of software out there. They all have
procedures to deal with absent authors. And this is fully supported by
licences like GPL, BSD. So why should there be a problem if you
transport the freedoms of these licences to a documentation licence.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld ####@####.####
www: http://www.djpig.de/
