discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
Rahul ####@####.####
Date:
9 Apr 2004 00:55:55 -0000
Message-Id: <20040409005527.50687.qmail@web8002.mail.in.yahoo.com>
--- "Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.#### wrote: >
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.
you are talking about free and open source software in
here which is irrelevant to the discussion of whether
documentation in tldp should allow modifications
> 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.
yes. i consider this to be a important requirement.
>
> 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.
>
its precisely important to identify such documents
precisely because we have documents with arbitrary
license which is a problematic situation
> 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
i gave you the example of gpl. that explains why
completely free documents that allow everything to be
changed are actually not as good as a share alike
license with attribution requirements. its relevant.
>
> 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.
this should be our goal. we are not going to do it a
single day but its important that we move towards
that. as a first step we can do a simple modification
which makes the forkable property of licenses a
requirement instead of a suggestion so that future
documents have such a license.
>
> If they are not legal at all, you refuse or remove
> the document.
>
> See... that wasn't so hard, was it?
>
its not hard once you identify them. a painful task if
we allow all kind of licenses
> 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.
i suggest we dont wait for problems to come up.
currently we allow gnu fdl documents and non
modifiable documents. we should not wait for these to
create problems later on. we should work proactively
towards preventing and solving issues regarding
licenses.
I have made my points. I do not wish to argue further
on this
regards
Rahul
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/
