discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
Date:
11 Apr 2004 06:57:14 -0000
Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040411004622.02428530@mail.simpaticus.com>
At 14:55 4/8/2004, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> --- Emma Jane Hogbin ####@####.#### wrote: >
> > However, the LDP will *never* change a license or
> > remove a document because of its license without
> > written permission from the author (in the case of
> > changing the license).
>
>I didnt suggest otherwise.
Forgive me for being blunt, Rahul, but you suggested *precisely* that. See
your email of April 6th which I have now quoted twice. You may defend your
idea or change your mind, but you *did* say that.
> > The LDP is not about convenience for commercial
> > distribution.
>
>LDP reaches a wider set of audience if the documents
>allow commerical redistribution. thats the goal of any
>kind of project i suppose.
I disagree that commercial redistribution (or wider dissemination of any
kind) is necessarily the goal of any kind of project. That concept comes
from measuring the "success" of a medium from its distribution alone, and
is an old-world paradigm not necessarily applicable either to modern media
or to the LDP. In my humble opinion, your supposition is flat-out wrong.
The goal of the LDP, again in my personal opinion, is to *help* people. Of
course wider distribution would give its documents a chance to help more
people... but if immediate access to that greater audience comes at the
expense of reducing the quantity or quality of the content LDP has worked
hard to provide, then I believe LDP should not make that choice EVER. Let
us always step forward, never back. (And that would be a HUGE step back.)
> > Saying that a document should be /removed/ from
> > the collection because it does not meet a specific
> > license criteria is ridiculous!!! There are many valid
> > reasons to remove a document from a collection,
> > but this is not one of them. :(
Amen.
>I believe all documents in the collection should allow
>modifications without prior permission. Instead of tbe
>boilerplate and arbitrary licenses it would be better
>to choose a single well known license like the
>creative commons one
Fine. I will agree to what is contained in this one brief paragraph, and as
mentioned elsewhere this is already being contemplated as a criterion for
accepting future submissions.
Now... how does this (or anything else) in any way justify your proposal of
removing any and all existing documents which do not allow modifications
without authorization from the author?
Cheers,
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
http://www.simpaticus.com
