discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
Date:
9 Apr 2004 00:12:50 -0000
Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040408174144.023c24c8@mail.simpaticus.com>
At 13:28 4/8/2004, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > I believe that we should not intentionally restrict the
> > use and availability of either tools or documentation
> > because it happens to disagree with out beliefs.
>
>1) dont confuse rree software and free documentation
I see no relevance or relation between my comment and your answer.
I thought I was very clear in the fact that I consider both proprietary
software and proprietary documentation acceptable. I *prefer* Free and
Open-Source for both, generally speaking, but my first criterion as a user
is getting stuff done. If and when Free options do not exist or have not
yet reached an acceptable level of quality and maturity, then I am happy to
accept Non-Free alternatives.
Please explain how I am confusing Free software with Free documentation,
and what relevance that might have to this discussion. I'm happy that LDP
now has license requirements for new documents (as noted by Emma). I'm
happy that we will move towards greater openness as time goes on. BUT... I
am also happy that we are not eliminating perfectly good, valid, and useful
resources we currently have until we have better ones with which to replace
them.
It appears that you disagree... as recently as April 6th, you posted a
message containing only the following: "I think we should go through the
entire collection and remove stuff which doesnt allow modifications to be
distributed." One assumes you thought this was very important, since you
posted a message just to say that.
I find it appalling that you are willing to chuck out God-knows-how-many
documents from the LDP collection because you don't like their license
terms. When LDP removed Al Dev's documents, some people claimed that even
mediocre information was better than none and that we should keep those
docs online until better ones could be written; and plenty of people got on
our case for removing the Kernel HOWTO before its replacement could be put
online. Now, you come along and suggest that we remove *everything* which
does not allow modification, regardless of recency, utility, value,
quality, or usefulness.
How in bloody hell is this not restrictive? And instead of telling me I'm
confused (which, I assure you, I am not), with which part of my beliefs (or
assertions about your beliefs) do you disagree?
>2) Sometimes restricting freedoms is important to
>preserve freedom in the long term.
I call "bullshit" here. I will refrain from saying lots and lots of very
negative things about your comment, and instead will simply challenge it as
being entirely out of line with the current conversation and having no
value therein. I will await your defense of why there is *any* benefit at
all in eliminating good, useful, maintained documents which have already
been accepted by LDP and for which we do not have as-good-or-better
replacements readily at hand.
>We are now having arbitrary licensed
>documents inside LDP. what do you do if they are not
>modifiable and not maintained?. what if they are not
>legal at all?
If they are not modifiable, but they are current and valid and maintained,
you keep them. If someone later comes along and writes another such
document which *is* modificable, then LDP can choose to keep one, the
other, or both.
If they are not modifiable and not maintained, then you place a high
priority on replacing them. When you have a replacement document, you
remove the old one.
If they are not legal at all, you refuse or remove the document.
See... that wasn't so hard, was it?
> > What will best > fulfill the mission and purpose of the
> > Linux Documentation Project is all that matters.
>
>Yes. Thats what I am talking about. I just stating one
>of the possible problems that anyone shouldnt have to
>face.
It's always nice to say "anyone shouldn't have to face this," Rahul, but
it's fantasy, and dangerous fantasy at that.
The reality is that *today* there are many documents in LDP whose licenses
do not allow modifications. You cannot wave a magic wand and make the
problem disappear, and your solution of unceremoniously junking all those
documents is atrocious. Let us solve the issues that come up (such as the
User Authentication HOWTO recently discussed) on a case-by-case basis. Let
us make sure that new documents do not have these problems. And then
eventually there will be no more such problems left to solve.
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
http://www.simpaticus.com
