discuss: TLDP and the Commercial World
Subject:
Re: TLDP and the Commercial World
From:
Stein Gjoen ####@####.####
Date:
28 Feb 2005 23:47:17 -0000
Message-Id: <4223AE93.50605@mail.nyx.net>
doug jensen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 02:28:39PM +0100, Stein Gjoen wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>To avoid further topic drift I am taking this to a separate thread.
>>
>>Machtelt Garrels wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>>>I agree with what was said before on free documents on non-free software:
>>>it is not really our task to host those and we should be carefull
>>>accepting those documents. Often they are written and contributed to TLDP
>>>because no good documentation is available for a product, but we run then
>>>the risk that the company owning the software lets TLDP/the community do
>>>the work, so that they can lateron "steel" the documentation, and include
>>>it in their product at no cost.
>>>
>>The only cases of abuse I know of so far are those of SCO putting
>>a non-compliant license to their locally hosted copy TLDP collection
>>and several cases of rampant advertising added to HOWTOs. As far as
>>I know these cases have not been too problematic.
>
> Could you provide more detail on how SCO has not been problematic?
The SCO hosted archive is not easily found using Google and
since they seem to have decided to destroy themselves they are
a bit like the flu: somewhat unpleasant now but gone tomorrow.
>>One hard disk manufacturer has linked to my Multi Disk HOWTO since
>>it makes a point of advantages with having several disks, something
>>a manufacturer also sees benefits in. They have not misrepresented
>>the document and I cannot see any problems here. It does give my
>>HOWTO a better coverage.
>
> Tille was addressing issues regarding free documentation and non-free
> software, your example addresses documentation of hardware issues. Would
> you mind clarifying with regard to free documentation and non-free
> software, particularly but not exlusively with regard to closed-source?
I am trying to broaden the perspective and feel the issues of
hardware (which tends to be proprietary) has issues relevant
to those of closed software.
My view is that TLDP should help our readers, even if it is
with a piece of proprietary software. The WordPerfect HOWTO
is a common example in these debates. It solves a real problem
without absolving the manufacturer the duty to provide their
customers with good documentation.
An overview document for, say, databases would not be complete
without mentioning commercial software such as Oracle.
While some prefer to do everything with free software I feel
TLDP should not dismiss documents that help people use less
than free software either.
> Personally, I don't think documentation of closed-source software should
> be accepted at all, it is like a mouse providing assistance to a cat.
> Non-free open-source software can lead to vendor lock-in which puts the
> user in a compromised position. (Note that the non-free is generally
> intended to refer to the state of freedom, not necessarily to the state
> of cost.)
I disagree and do not see how you can end up with a lock-in.
When adressing our readers I feel it is fair to assume they
are not fully informed, which is the reason they come here,
but I also feel it is quite wrong to assume they cannot make
an intelligent decision once informed.
>>If we all agree this is a good thing and that this is not abuse we
>>might improve TLDP coverage by cooperating with various companies.
>>Many send CD-ROMs with their products and might be interested in
>>adding relevant HOWTOs as the CD-ROMs are rarely full.
>>
>>I believe a company that steals and change the copyright would end
>>up with so much negative coverage they would regret it for a long
>>time. There is a slight risk a technical author might steal entire
>>sections out of HOWTOs to save time and effort. It is possible that
>>happened several years ago and the situation was defused properly
>>which is quietly.
>
> I disagree. Open, calm discussion is much better, and others can benefit
> from understanding the resolution. Quiet, resolutions can lead to FUD,
> half-baked solutions, and secret agreements. Open discussion can lead to
> problems too, but at least it is possible to figure out where the problems
> are.
There are times when discression is the best avenue, also FSF takes
this approach when dealing with potential violations. Otherwise
open, calm discussions is also my preference.
>>All in all I belive we should look at the possibilities of cooperating
>>with companies rather than fearing them. Both parties have a lot to
>>gain from this.
>
> Who are you referring to that fears companies? I know that I don't. I
> just want the ones that aren't, to get off their thrones and work
> cooperatively with their customers and society. Alot of companies
> engage in manipulative and deceptive practices, that is bad and should
> not be accepted.
I am not claming there is any fear; rather I want to bring up an
issue and suggest an approach. Yes, there is a lot of bad or even
entirely missing ethics in business. that does not mean all are
like that. "Don't be evil" is an approach that has worked so far.
Also fate has a way of catching up with everyone.
Regards,
Stein Gjoen
