discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
Rahul ####@####.####
Date:
6 Apr 2004 23:29:55 -0000
Message-Id: <20040406232950.47424.qmail@web8004.mail.in.yahoo.com>
Hi
> 1. I hope you agree that any use of the optional
> invariant sections
> makes the content not "modifiable".
Yes. Thats optional and I hope that majority of
existing documentation dont include it.
>
> 2. Section 2's DRM restriction clause (banning all
> "technical measures
> to obstruct or control" reading and copying) appears
> to ban storing or
> conveying GFDL-covered content over encrypted media
> or links, among
> other things. Although the right to (say) put a
> document in a
> password-covered Zip archive isn't in your list, I
> suspect silly
> prohibitions of ordinary usage actions aren't OK
> with you.
>
> 3. Section 3's Copying in Quantity clause requires
> that distributors
> not merely _offer_ GFDLed documents' "transparent"
> renditions to the
> public, but that it must actually be _included_.
I think TLDP doesnt have any explicitly stated
criteria for licenses that are acceptable. The
problems stated with FDL though important are not as
much a potential problem compared to the existing
situtation
I have seen this content on
http://tldp.org/docs.html#howto
"Non-Free Documents (contain license restrictions):
*
Rute Users Tutorial and Exposition
Due to restrictive license provisions, the Rute
document has been removed from the LDP, but can still
be accessed from http://rute.sourceforge.net/
"
So TLDP has classified atleast one such document as
non free. So what I am pushing for here is certainly
not new.
The choices we can make are simple. We should specify
a common set of criteria for licenses that makes them
acceptable
The creative commons website has a clear set of
choices
http://creativecommons.org/license/
leading to this
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/
for me.
By specifying any set of criterias we are certainly
excluding authors from including such content in
tldp.org but they are free to host them elsewhere. My
point is pretty specific. We shouldnt allow arbitrary
licensed content in tldp.org. Its *is* problematic.
The way to move foward is
1) Agree on a set of acceptable criterias for
including a documentation license
2) Agree on a recommended licenses and acceptable
licenses
3)Bring about a list of documents that are in
violation on 1) and 2.
4) work on replacing those documents after a suitable
altnerative version is ready
regards
Rahul
regards
Rahul
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more.
Go to: http://in.insurance.yahoo.com/licspecial/index.html
