discuss: User Authentication Howto - license issue?
Subject:
Fwd: Re: User Authentication Howto - license issue?
From:
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
Date:
6 Apr 2004 14:38:30 -0000
Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040406083800.0243e3b0@mail.simpaticus.com>
Sent only to Rahul by mistake, now reposted...
>Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:56:37 -0600
>To: Rahul Sundaram ####@####.####
>From: "Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
>Subject: Re: User Authentication Howto - license issue?
>
>At 18:56 4/5/2004, you wrote:
>>I think we should go through the entire collection and
>>remove stuff which doesnt allow modifications to be
>>distributed
>
>Rahul, despite your clearly positive and constructive *intentions*, doing
>this is clearly shooting yourself in the foot and thus, not advised. It is
>the perfect example of "cutting off your nose to spite your face," to
>borrow an expression from the USA.
>
>IF/WHEN...
>
> 1. a document needs maintenance or improvement,
>
> 2. and its author is not providing said maintenance or improvement,
>
> 3. and the license does not permit modification without
> authorization,
>
> 4. and the author cannot be contacted or will not authorize,
>
> 5. and maybe I missed another condition or two here...
>
>THEN...
>
> 6. we remove or rewrite the doc, or otherwise take care of the
> problem.
>
>But honestly, LDP has enough work to do without needlessly eliminating
>documents which are still valid and useful and maintained, just because of
>the license (which is currently not causing a problem). First things
>first, my friend...
>
>Besides, I have to say that most of the world is very fast-and-loose about
>licenses and copyrights (and outright theft and piracy sometimes). It is
>remarkably refreshing, to one such as I who has some ideals, to see a
>community like this put so much effort into respecting the legal and
>ethical rights of someone they don't know and could not care less about,
>and from whom no threat is perceived and/or likely. This is a Good Thing
>[tm], and by God I hope the rest of the Linux community does not lose this
>spirit of honesty and integrity.
>
>Seeing this argument go by is really making me reconsider how to license
>my own docs. If there were only LDP to consider, I'd use any license the
>LDP requested in a blink. But even with the specter of someone else out
>there misusing and misrepresenting my work, I think that perhaps the best
>way to contribute to this community is to simply have faith that such
>ideals will be upheld, and to offer something on such faith alone.
>
>Run the perceived risk of damage, so that by running said risk you
>contribute to perpetuating the ideals of a community which cannot prevent
>that damage, but abhors it. Expressly support the Linux worldview by
>leaving aside some of the considerations normally to be had in other
>communities, in the hope and faith that *this* community will handle
>things differently.
>
>A somewhat revolutionary thought, but I like it.
>
>--
>Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
>http://www.simpaticus.com
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
http://www.simpaticus.com
