discuss: modifiability of docs: final decision
Subject:
Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
From:
Rahul Sundaram ####@####.####
Date:
7 Mar 2005 18:02:18 -0000
Message-Id: <20050307180148.23420.qmail@web8509.mail.in.yahoo.com>
>
> No. But our volunteer authors are our sole source
> for our documents. It is
> best to listen carefully to their requests.
sure but I dont think you have considered my LDP mark
proposal yet. I would like to know whether you
considered it enough to satisfy their requests.
>
> At least the metadata will show you which documents
> have custom licenses
> instead of having to read each individual document.
> In the last year (or
> so) that I've been reviewing documents none (that I
> can think of) have
> used a non-standard license. They've all been one
> of: GNU FDL, GPL, CC
> (Share-Alike), or released into the public domain.
> By our definition, the
> public domain document is actually "non-standard"
> because it doesn't
> conform to a specific license. This is the reason
> why I don't want to make
> the manifesto strict.
we can add public domain, BSD etc to the list of
licenses. we can request that authors consult with
someone in LDP if for some reason none of the licenses
actually satisfy their requirements. The current state
of document licenses is not a big mess. I just want to
future proof this
If authors can choose use non modifiable licenses to
"protect" their documents then they can easily take
advantage of LDP review process for their own
benefits instead of working with the community. we
also generally pull documents out of LDP on authors
requests. so its exploitable
=====
Regards
Rahul Sundaram
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
