discuss: Proposal for revised license and license requirements.
Subject:
Re: Proposal for revised license and license requirements.
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
8 Jun 2005 17:39:37 -0000
Message-Id: <20050608173934.GS1486@linuxmafia.com>
(Speaking for myself, not LDP.)
Quoting Mysid ####@####.####
> This is a huge sacrifice of freedom for very little gain.
[...]
You're repeating yourself, a great deal. That is getting tiresome.
We understand the advantages (and drawbacks) of genuinely free
documentation. We also know the reluctance of many authors to use it:
It can be difficult to grant that degree of permission to modify, on
something that seems to reflect personally on one's self. I sometimes
use non-free licensing on my writings, for that reason. Quoting
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/ (my personal "FAQ" or "rants" page):
Copyright (C) 1995-2005 by Rick Moen. Verbatim copying,
distribution, and display of this entire article (page) are
permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
Alternatively, you may create derivative works of any sort for any
purpose, provided your versions contain no attribution to me, and
that you assert your own authorship (and not mine) in every
practical medium.
Anyhow, the repeated attempts to convince the LDP that free licensing on
documentation is A Good Thing are a waste of your time and everyone
else's. Pretty much everyone agrees. Move on, please.
> I don't see that documentation is significantly different in regards to the
> issue of freedom.
You appear unwilling to recognise real-world differences of kind (access
to preferred form) and of scale (infrequency of derivative-work issues,
smaller sizes and time commitments compared to typical software cases).
OK, you decline to acknowledge the point. That's not a crime. Move on,
please.
