Subject:
Re: getting sponsorship and marketing LDP
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
14 Dec 2003 01:27:13 -0000
Message-Id: <20031213234936.GA1457@lafn.org>
> > At 15:03 12/8/2003, David Lawyer wrote:
> > >LDP docs need to be neutral and not promote one
> > >company over another. Thus they shouldn't contain any advertising or
> > >unjustified bias towards a certain product.
> >
> On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 19:44, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> > I agree.
>
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 06:11:20PM -0800, Tabatha Marshall wrote:
> I also agree with this, but to a point. Advertising in a HOWTO is one
> thing - documenting commercial software in its relation to Linux is
> another altogether.
>
> > However, this does not prevent the LDP from raising funds by showing, for
> > example, one advertising banner at the top of the page. Since _any_
> > sponsor's ad may be shown, the LDP gets to raise some cash and the HOWTO
> > stays objective. Having IBM as a sponsor would be a great thing (ditto for
> > hundreds of other companies), although we must ensure that our objectivity
> > is never compromised.
> >
> > I strongly favor the LDP raising some funds to use in better achieving its
> > stated aims and goals. Offering, say, a $50 thank you for a
> > professionally-written document or for a thorough review of that document
> > could well be an incentive to get more people involved. It might also buy
> > us more/better web development, that database engine everyone keeps wishing
> > on a star for... surely LDP can live without funds, but if there is a
> > valid, workable way to _get_ some funds then that is not a bad thing either!
>
> I'm not even going to touch this one right now. Since there is no
> formal organization, who is to decide how to spend the funds? That's
> what I believe is the crux of the fundraising issue.
>
> > >Also, LDP should produce
> > >free documentation for free software. Covalent software isn't free.
> >
> > Here I disagree. This is the "Linux" Documentation Project, not the Open
> > Source DP or the Free Software DP. If I use a $300 copy of VMware
> > Workstation on Linux, and someone writes a HOWTO on it, and the HOWTO is
> > valid and useful and well-written, I think it should be included. Why not?
> > It is Linux software, and works well, and may help us convert more people
> > to using Linux. It is not "free as in speech" and it is not "free as in
> > beer"; nevertheless, it is Linux software and someone is providing
> > documentation for it... hence I find it appropriate for the Linux
> > Documentation Project.
>
> I disagree here too. If the rest of the LDP agreed, we'd be getting rid
> of a LOT of HOWTOs. Let's see...
>
> Netmeeting HOWTO
> Quake HOWTO
> StarOffice HOWTO
> WordPerfect mini-HOWTO
> Numerous Oracle HOWTOs
> Numerous Sybase HOWTOs
> Outlook to Unix Mailbox Conversion mini-HOWTO
> Windows Newsreaders under Linux HOWTO
> Lotus Domino R5 for Linux mini-HOWTO
> Linux+<Name your OS> HOWTO
It's very sad to realize that the LDP has been coopted to distribute
documentation for non-free software. The GNU project's goal is to
create all the software people need as free software. Stallman said
something to the effect that if one can't run their business with free
software, they should find another business. This was after Guylhem
introduced me to Stallman at a Linux Expo in Montreal. But I think GNU
documentation goes too far by not even allowing the discussion of
non-free software.
> These only name a FEW. One of the most noted characteristics of the
> open source community is the effort of the individuals who document
> their experiences for others. Without this effort, there would be no
> one to show how Microsoft, Oracle or other proprietary products could be
> integrated with Linux, and Linux wouldn't have been perceived today to
> be as versatile as it really is.
In general, the companies that sell the software should also document
it. Volunteers shouldn't be doing it. Why wouldn't a volunteer prefer
to document free software instead?
The LDP should not become an organization that companies utilize for
their own personal gain by coopting LDP to distribute their documentation
for free and thus promote their non-free software.
> As long as there are system administrators in the world using such
> products in Linux environments, there will be a need for these
> documents. The documentation put out by the software maker may not
> handle a person's issue, and tech support may be at a cost. (No, I'm
> not implying that's only of interest to system admins, I highlight it to
> demonstrate that they are but one group of important folks who benefit
> from the documentation effort.) Bottom line is the audience exists and
> the topics meet the criteria.
This is a complex topic, because if there are free software
alternatives, poor documentation of the non-free software (and better
documentation of the free software) will help in getting people to
switch to using free software. This is the objective of the free
software movement. In our Manifesto, we refer to GNU/Linux. Stallman
personally requested that we do this and the majority agreed (I
abstained but have since changed my mind in favor of GNU/Linux).
> I feel as though I want to say more, but think I've stated my case. I
> am open to addressing flaws in my theory, but for the reasons I gave
> above, I feel these kinds of documents do, in fact, belong in the
> collection.
I think that some of them may belong in the collection. But not ones
that are being used by software firms to use the LDP as a free means of
distributing their documentation. I don't know what percent are doing
this, and some may be doing this secretly by paying "volunteers" to
write it.
> > Not every developer needs or wants to open up their source code
> > and/or distribute their software for free. This is their right, and
> > not all software is bad because of that. I do not believe that
It is not what GNU/Linux is about. It's about creating a system of
entirely free software for the benefit of the public and maximization of
welfare by selling software at its marginal cost (which is just the cost
of making copies --essentially free).
> > either of these factors (cost or closed source) should exclude that
> > software from being documented by LDP.
>
> If it bothers proprietary software makers that individuals have
> written material describing how to work with Linux, there's only one
> simple solution. They should make their documentation BETTER. We
> seem to have willing volunteers to fill this need, so why try to stop
> them?
David Lawyer
