discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
Thomas Zimmerman ####@####.####
Date:
11 Apr 2004 15:23:37 -0000
Message-Id: <200404110824.52004.thomas@zimres.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 10 April 2004 11:46 pm, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> At 18:55 4/8/2004, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
[snip]
> >its precisely important to identify such documents
> >precisely because we have documents with arbitrary
> >license which is a problematic situation
[snip]
> 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.
To summerize the argument: Documents with restrictive licences are hard
if not imposable to maintain. The LDP collection has an unknown number
of restrictive licenses (with an unknown number of vanished authors).
Therefore, a list needs to be made of problematic documents. Rahul
suggests that the problematic documents be removed.
(I hope I've got the correct gist of the argument :)
I think the list does need to be made, as there are documents that are
"lost" because of the license and vanishing authors. (email links
bit-rot just like web links. How ... biological.) Taking a look at the
LDP manifesto, the suggestion that "documents be modifiable" should be
much stronger--documentation that can't be worked with quickly becomes
worth much less. (the License Requirements section is out of date, the
GFDL is out, and _not_ recommended because of it's GPL
incompatibility.)
Talk of licenses is fun, but it doesn't get much work done. :)
Thomas
[snip]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAeWMyOStTnUTb5R8RAhMdAJ9k8U07WypMIHEdxrzWnWo4QLAMxgCePdMo
C11qPqw8a+DdVfPUSyeVpWk=
=WrcS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
