Subject:
Re: new documentation license
From:
Colin Watson ####@####.####
Date:
25 Nov 2003 17:39:01 -0000
Message-Id: <20031125173859.GA17097@riva.ucam.org>
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 09:35:10AM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> At 07:47 11/24/2003, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> >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.
[...]
> The document I wrote is mine. MINE. I get the credit for it if it's worth
> anything, and I have created it to help others and specifically in the hope
> of helping LDP improve their collection and of contributing to that effort.
> However, this also means that I take the responsibility for maintaining it,
> incorporating changes, comments, suggestions, and feedback to make it
> better, but doing so in a way that keeps or improves the readability of the
> document.
>
> I will not allow just anyone to hack away at my writing. Most people's
> spelling, grammar, syntax, and literary style are simply appalling (or, as
> the average dude would say, "blow chunks.") So, on a personal level, I most
> certainly DO NOT want a license that allows anyone to modify what I've
> written, ESPECIALLY while my name is ont it (and of course, I don't want
> anyone changing a comma, replacing my name with theirs, and distributing
> the result either).
That's entirely your choice and is to be respected; but I honestly do
not believe that the result is Free (as opposed to freely
distributable).
> This does not mean I would not be happy to grant many people the right to
> modify and redistribute my document... but I do not want to see, as I said
> above, someone else writing stuff that still has my name on it, or someone
> else putting their name to stuff I wrote. In software, these issues do not
> come up, but in writing text they do.
Do you really think that software authors don't take pride in their
work? I most certainly do! I put great effort into my code, both
technically and stylistically: readability and elegance are of very high
importance (if only because experience shows that those criteria
correlate well with good working code). I could just as well say:
I will not allow just anyone to hack away at my code. Most people's
attention to detail, bounds-checking, security awareness and brace
style are simply appalling (or, as the average dude would say, "blow
chunks"). So, on a personal level, I most certainly DO NOT want a
license that allows anyone to modify what I've written, ESPECIALLY
while my name is on it (and of course, I don't want anyone changing a
comment, replacing my name with theirs, and distributing the result
either).
In fact, many software authors do say exactly this, for precisely the
reasons you cite. They're fully entitled to do so, but it's not called
Free, and it's valuable when people are generous enough not to apply
such restrictions.
I've seen people claim this kind of thing a number of times, and I
honestly don't know where this quite remarkable myth comes from. Good
programmers take just as much pride in their work as good authors, and
there are plenty of programmers who decide that they prefer to maintain
total control over their work. However, the community of programmers
that produced Linux and other software documented by the LDP found that
it was better, whether for ethical or practical reasons, to allow anyone
to modify their work.
In practice, abuse is rare, and the sort of people who would abuse your
moral rights as the author are the sort of people liable to ignore the
licence anyway. The dynamics of the net are such that you're
overwhelmingly likely to get credit for a good document you wrote even
if one or two idiots abuse it.
Also, note that minor restrictions on modification that say things like
"if you modify this, you must leave a note in the changelog of what
you've changed" or "you must give me credit for any distribution of this
document, modified or otherwise" are perfectly free by all definitions
I've seen. Look at the GPL for examples.
> >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.
>
> Then, personally, I don't want it. And I think many others will not either.
> Again, documents are not software.
I strongly believe that they share many of the same characteristics, and
that many of the benefits of software freedom apply to documentation
freedom as well. As above, I furthermore believe that the benefits of
restrictive licensing for documentation are substantially overstated in
the same way that the benefits of restrictive licensing for software are
often overstated, and that most of your concerns can be addressed using
free licences.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson ####@####.####
