discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
Date:
6 Apr 2004 21:49:24 -0000
Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040406153842.02573c00@mail.simpaticus.com>
At 12:21 4/6/2004, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>We are documenting software thats usually free and we
>need documentation that allows modifications and
>redistribution to be done freely.
Makes sense. Not obligatory, but logical.
>why should we volunteer our work for
>someone who has a restricted license?
You're free to volunteer your work for anything you please, and to refrain
from doing so in any case you please.
But why should everyone else be bound by *your* beliefs and preferences?
Example: I find that Macromedia Flash is a wonderful tool though it is not
Free. I do not have the ability to code a replacement. However, I believe
that Linux will grow further and faster if it can use existing and popular
tools like Flash *until* Free replacements exist *and* such replacements
have grown so popular that Flash is no longer useful.
*You* would not volunteer your time to document the use of Flash on Linux.
*I* would. The problem is that you speak of "we" and what "we" should do,
when there is no "we" at all. I would never force you to volunteer your
time when you did not desire to do so, but I will volunteer my time to
document whatever I damn well please. Whether it's Free or not, whether I
get paid or not, whether I paint my legs green or not... all of these are
irrelevant to *you* since you are not the one volunteering anything in my case.
I'll make it simple: I propose that, for every document that you wish to
remove because you don't like its license and which is still useful and
still maintained, that you first come up with another way to provide that
information to the users who need it. But if it's useful, and you can't
replace it, then removing it is counterproductive, damaging to the very
community you want to help, and absolutely indefensible.
Summary: what *you* believe only governs what you do with *your* time. Be
careful not to attempt to force your preferences on the rest of us.
>This is not just an idealogical issue. Suppose I want
>to distribute the whole LDP collection. With possible
>variations of licenses and stuff how do I know if all
>of the documents are licensed to allow redistribution.
>Do I have to consult a lawyer?
If you want to demand consistency in licensing, then you are going to lose
some authors and some documents. You are certainly going to lose more than
you can quickly and conveniently replace. And the LDP community needs to be
clear in what trade-offs it is willing to make. *I* want to help people...
but to dramatize the point, it sometimes feels like you only want to help
them under certain conditions.
Yes... if you want to distribute the LDP collection, at this point you need
to consult a lawyer, apparently. It is what it is, I guess. Work towards
more freedom... don't inhibit people from exercising theirs just because
you don't like their choices.
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
http://www.simpaticus.com
