discuss: modifiability of docs: final decision
Subject:
Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
7 Mar 2005 06:35:09 -0000
Message-Id: <20050307062146.GA915@lafn.org>
> >
> > Please note: I am working on the Author Guide at this point, not the
> > manifesto.
>
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 07:32:01PM -0800, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> True but its important that the authors guide is
> consistent with the manifesto. if the manifesto
> recommends custom licenses and the authors guide
It *allows* custom licenses provided they meet LDP's criteria.
> recommend "Standard" licenses thats a bad thing
>
> > > specifically " You can come up with your own license terms that
> > > satisfy these conditions, or you can use a previously prepared
> > > license"
> > I'm not sure where that text is in the Author Guide...have you
> > copied that from the manifesto?
>
> yes
>
> > The intention is to have the author use: 1) an existing license 2) a
> > simple copyleft-ish statement which basically says, "You may modify
> > this document if you'd like under whatever conditions you see fit."
>
>
> I have already mentioned this before. We are NOT making it easy for
> distributions if the authors choose custom licenses
Not so. See below.
> Every custom license will have to be reviewed by someone qualified to
> do it to check whether the document allows commercial redistribution.
> distributions would also like to modify docs if required
Not so. The LDP requirement from the manifesto is that:
Anyone may copy and distribute (sell or give away) LDP documents (or
other LDP works) in any media and/or format. No fees are required to
be paid to the authors. It is not required that the documents be
modifiable, but it is encouraged.
This obviously allows commercial redistribution.
> If we require standard licenses this problem disappears. Even if it
> doesnt require modifications atleast distributions do not have to go
> through every single document license to check whether it meets their
> criteria for distribution
Not so. See above.
David Lawyer
> ===== Regards Rahul Sundaram
