discuss: Documentation licensing
Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
Rahul ####@####.####
Date:
11 Apr 2004 17:04:38 -0000
Message-Id: <20040411170433.17727.qmail@web8004.mail.in.yahoo.com>
Hi
> 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.
>
I agree on all those points but there are still
practical difficulties which we should work on. Acting
as if the current situation is good and nothing needs
to be done to improve it is not the way to move
forward
> Thus, although documentation not allowing
> modifications is sub-optimal,
> I just can't see why purging affected works is in
> anyone's interest.
the documentation thats hosted by LDP should be part
of community work where individual volunteers can
improve on each of these documents and take over if
necessary. Non forkable documents are not part of this
kind of effort and has the potential to cause problems
in maintainability. I dont think we need to depend on
the original author to maintain the document. If they
do it thats fine but when they dont do it forkable
documents are much better
> 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.
The existance of a LDP manifesto and insisting on
implementing it is good but the current licensing
requirements in my opinion is not optimal
regards
Rahul
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/
