discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
11 Apr 2004 09:06:12 -0000
Message-Id: <20040411090609.GA19884@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Rodolfo J. Paiz ####@####.####
[Answering Rahul:]
> 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?
If I may interject, as a person friendly to all parties concerned: Many
people assume without due contemplation that non-free (meaning in this
instance non-forkable) software documention poses the same long-term
problems non-free software does, but it strikes me that we can all relax
just a little (especially Rahul).
Non-free software is often _very_ difficult to work around: In addition
to creating ancillary problems of lock-in to other, matching proprietary
pieces, protocols, and data formats, it is also deliberately difficult
to study, to reverse-engineer, to even figure out in broad terms how it
works at all. That's above and beyond the baseline difficulty of
writing a functional equivalent.
By contrast, even the most restrictively licensed documentation can be
studied and read down to its structural bones, indefinitely, by anyone
wanting to write a replacement. No lock-in effects with related
proprietary works/protocols/formats exist (in effect). All you have to
do is read, think, and write something of your own to the same effect.
The licensing does nothing to make that task more difficult.
Thus, although documentation not allowing modifications is sub-optimal,
I just can't see why purging affected works is in anyone's interest.
The best way to improve the situation is to favour works with better
licences, and encourage authors wanting to write them -- and LDP already
does those things.
--
Cheers, No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message.
Rick Moen We do concede, though, that a large number of electrons
####@####.#### were terribly inconvenienced.
