discuss: Modifiability of documentation and software
Subject:
Re: Modifiability of documentation and software
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
26 Feb 2005 03:26:02 -0000
Message-Id: <20050226032635.GF774@lafn.org>
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 01:45:55AM -0800, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> >
> > So far no distributions have objected except for Debian, which
> > distributed the non-modifiable ones in a different package. I don't
> > think they should have done this.
>
> Debian is one of the very few distributions distributing LDP docs. are
> there any other at all.
Well, when they were distributed by RedHat, etc. there wasn't any
complaint about the licenses.
> Regardless of your opinion a document that is not modifiable is
> non-free and will not be distributed by Free software distributions
I just mentioned that Debian distributes the non-free ones in a separate
package.
>
> > > another custom license. I dont really like this
> > idea at all. Here is a
> > > alternative proposal
> >
> > It gets worse regarding custom licenses. Prohibiting adding
> > advertisements is another thing that could be added to a license.
> > It would also include prohibiting display of the document with
> > advertising in the form of pop-ups, etc. Even if modification is
> > not allowed, one could claim that they haven't modified it even
> > though they force you to look at advertising while you read it.
> > They could use frames for this. This stuff happens and is happening
> > right now. The misuse of HOWTOs is great, including proliferation
> > of outdated HOWTOs when newer versions exist.
>
>
> you completely ignore my proposal. adding licensing restrictions to
> prevent misuse is pointless. it simply will not work out
I think I would work out in many cases if the author tries hard. If you
point out to a site that it's a violation of the license, many will stop
doing it. People have reported that this has happened.
David Lawyer
