discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
Date:
11 Apr 2004 06:46:05 -0000
Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040411002344.024293d0@mail.simpaticus.com>
At 18:55 4/8/2004, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> --- "Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.#### wrote: >
> > 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."
>
>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.
>
>its precisely important to identify such documents
>precisely because we have documents with arbitrary
>license which is a problematic situation
>
>[...]
>
>I have made my points. I do not wish to argue further
I beg to differ.
What you *have* done is to point repeatedly to the texts suggesting and/or
requiring license terms for future document submissions, and it was my
perception that the responses were all on the order of "it's already fixed"
or "great idea, let's fix it". See the other (far more coherent) discussion
going on in this thread re the GFDL 1.2, the CC's Attribution-ShareAlike
1.0, et al. for reference. That's being discussed, and is a valuable
contribution to this forum, but is not my primary concern at the moment.
What you have *not* done is present a coherent argument to defend your
proposal of wholesale removal. You have called for the wholesale removal of
documents with licenses of which you do not approve. Emma and I have
disagreed at length. You continue to argue pro removal (see the "important
requirement" line above) because it is "a problematic situation" (this is
why I quoted so much stuff above). I continue to tell you that removal
*specifically due to licensing disagreements* is restrictive, damaging to
the LDP and its community of users, and a downright silly idea which I will
fight tooth and nail to prevent.
I have yet to see you provide any defense whatsoever for your proposal of
wholesale renewal. If you do not wish to argue further, that is your
prerogative of course. I just thought you should know that not only have
you not convinced me, you have not even succeeded in *communicating* your
reasoning to me. Perhaps others have understood you better, but I still don't.
Just to be crystal-clear, in case you get to feeling attacked: I believe
you have the best of intentions and that you genuinely want "the best" for
LDP and its community. I think rather highly of you in general, based on
what I've seen on this list. I just think THIS ONE PARTICULAR IDEA is dead
wrong and a prime candidate for the "Worst Ideas of All Time" Hall of Fame.
I like you... I just hate this particular thought of yours. So don't take
it personally.
Cheers,
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
http://www.simpaticus.com
