discuss: Thread: Adverts on LDP mirrors

Hello all,
what is the position with regard to advertsing on LDP mirrors?
Cheers
Allister

Quoting Mail Lists ####@####.####

> Hello all,
> what is the position with regard to advertsing on LDP mirrors?

Allister, good question.  I suspect this is one of the reasons LDP
licensing has always been an area of diverse views.  (I was going to say
"contention", but that's not exactly right:  Licensing of non-software
works is a difficult subject that has been characterised by very diverse
views, problems that weren't anticipated, and a shortage of overall,
enforced policy.)

Some LDP people really rather dislike the common practice of putting a
mirror up of free-licensed content, with nothing added in substantive
content, but milking that content for advertising revenues from ads
placed on the same pages.  It seems tawdry and parasitic, and a desire
to prevent that practice has often been expressed.  On the other hand,
any truly free / open source license (by criteria of either OSD or DFSG
or Stallman's Four Freedoms Essay; take your pick) includes the right of
commercial use.  So, you _cannot_ ban advertising without rendering the
thus-licensed content non-free / proprietary by definition.  

In a theoretical policy sense, LDP _could_ have made some sort of
statement about advertising, but I don't believe it ever has.  That
having been said, the only policy that really matters is the licensing
terms of individual pieces -- which licensing for historical reasons
have been diverse (something we're trying somewhat painfully to fix),
but to the best of my recollection, I don't recall seeing any LDP
documents whose licences prevent use of advertising.

On Thursday 27 November 2008 20:02:53 Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Mail Lists ####@####.####
> > Hello all,
> > what is the position with regard to advertsing on LDP mirrors?

>
> In a theoretical policy sense, LDP _could_ have made some sort of
> statement about advertising, but I don't believe it ever has.  That
> having been said, the only policy that really matters is the licensing
> terms of individual pieces -- which licensing for historical reasons
> have been diverse (something we're trying somewhat painfully to fix),
> but to the best of my recollection, I don't recall seeing any LDP
> documents whose licences prevent use of advertising.

Thanks for the reply.  Given what you have said, I will ignore any adverts 
until the position changes.


Allister

Mail Lists wrote:
> Hello all,
> what is the position with regard to advertsing on LDP mirrors?

I don't think there is one but in general I don't think we like it.  But
there's a more serious related problem.  Snapshots of LDP docs or the
website put on the web for advertising purposes (and not as a mirror).  I
haven't checked recently, but there used to be more of these sites than
mirror sites.

Since they don't get automatically updated, they wind up containing even
more stale HOWTOs than are are found at the mirrors.  Many of the old
HOWTOs there contain links to our expropriated linuxdoc.org.  I was 
searching
for a topic and wound up at one of these sites.  I found a very out-of-date
doc there (by me) and it says to click on linuxdoc.org/...  to see the
latest version.  If I do, I wind up at the expropriated linuxdoc site.  So
my attempt to guide people to the latest version only gave them spam.

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Mail Lists ####@####.####
> 
>> Hello all,
>> what is the position with regard to advertsing on LDP mirrors?
I think that most mirrors have no ads but for snapshots, most do have ads
and sometimes they are animated, etc. and interfere with reading the
documentation.
> 
> Allister, good question.  I suspect this is one of the reasons LDP
> licensing has always been an area of diverse views.  (I was going to say
> "contention", but that's not exactly right:  Licensing of non-software
> works is a difficult subject that has been characterised by very diverse
> views, problems that weren't anticipated, and a shortage of overall,
> enforced policy.)
> 
> Some LDP people really rather dislike the common practice of putting a
> mirror up of free-licensed content, with nothing added in substantive
> content, but milking that content for advertising revenues from ads
> placed on the same pages.  It seems tawdry and parasitic, and a desire
> to prevent that practice has often been expressed.  On the other hand,
> any truly free / open source license (by criteria of either OSD or DFSG
> or Stallman's Four Freedoms Essay; take your pick) includes the right of
> commercial use.  So, you _cannot_ ban advertising without rendering the
> thus-licensed content non-free / proprietary by definition.  

Well, it depends on how one defines freedom.  I pointed out the ad problem
to Stallman and he had sympathy for the problem but didn't change his
definition of free software.  The problem is not as bad as it was formerly
since it seems that the Google search engine, etc. now seems to give a
higher rating to mirror sites or the docs there than to sites with ads (and
often very stale docs).

Isn't it freedom to be able to read a free doc without interference from
ads?  I think we need a new definition of free documentation to allow
prohibition of displaying it with annoying advertising.  A non-obtrusive
link or two to sponsoring commercial sites could be permitted.  One could
write a license that would include the freedom of insuring that docs can be
read without pesky advertising but I don't think it's been done.

David Lawyer a écrit :

> website put on the web for advertising purposes (and not as a mirror).  I
> haven't checked recently, but there used to be more of these sites than
> mirror sites.

we have little control over them :-(, no disputed claim office here

> HOWTOs there contain links to our expropriated linuxdoc.org.

see other thread

jdd


-- 
jdd for the Linux Documentation Project
http://wiki.tldp.org
http://www.dodin.net

Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####

Hi, David.  I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint, and don't want to leave
the impression I'm happy about LDP mirrors sometimes being festooned
with advertising.  However, since you asked a question in my approximate
direction (albeit one you might have intended to be rhetorical ;->  ):

> Isn't it freedom to be able to read a free doc without interference from
> ads?

Absolutely:  This is why genuinely free-licensed documentation includes
the (quite vital) freedom to gain a copy of that documentation from
anywhere desired, to strip off advertising and damned near anything else
you don't like, to read, to enjoy, and (if you wish) to republish it the
manner you prefer it.

The point being that the presence of advertising on some (many?) LDP
mirrors does _not_ remove that freedom, your implication notwithstanding.

> I think we need a new definition of free documentation to allow
> prohibition of displaying it with annoying advertising.

As I said, I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint, _but_ you should be aware
that that conception of "free" _will_ be summarily rejected by anyone who
applies any of the three commonly accepted yardsticks for free / open
source.   That has nothing to do with the contents or merits of your
views or mine; it's just a fact that it is (in my view) important to
understand.

I think that LDP desires to not have its documentation be immediately
classified as proprietary.

Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####

> But
> there's a more serious related problem.  Snapshots of LDP docs or the
> website put on the web for advertising purposes (and not as a mirror). 
> [...] 
> Since they don't get automatically updated, they wind up containing even
> more stale HOWTOs than are are found at the mirrors.

Again, this is one of the drawbacks of a truly free licence[1]:  You cannot
prevent people from hosting obsolete copies.

As an LDP author, I've attempted to anticipate and head off the problem
by always including an inline prominent comment about where the master
version (and thus the latest release) can be found, with a hyperlink.

[1] Actually, this is equally a problem with proprietary licences:
E.g., there are dozens of obsolete copies, in various places around the
world, of (old versions of) the essay "How to Ask Questions the Smart
Way", which I co-authored with Eric S. Raymond, even though the (extremely 
generous) copying policy at http://www.catb.org/~esr/copying.html
specifically disallows static, never-updated Web copies.  I've written to
many of those sites' owners, politely asking them to please update, and
usually get ignored.

On Saturday 29 November 2008 14:44:37 jdd for http://tldp.org wrote:
> David Lawyer a écrit :
> > website put on the web for advertising purposes (and not as a mirror).  I
> > haven't checked recently, but there used to be more of these sites than
> > mirror sites.
>
> we have little control over them :-(, no disputed claim office here

I can see that we have might have very little control over such mirrors, but 
one phrase that I remember from the mirrors page asks that potential mirror 
sites mirror the whole of the LDP site.  I state this in relation to another 
question.  A site that I have looked at tonight have removed the Ibiblio 
graphic and link from the bottom left of the index.html page and replaced it 
with a graphic of their own pointing to their own site.  Now apart from this, 
this mirror appears to be a good and faithful rendition of the tldp.org site.  
What I was wondering was whether this was OK, or was the mirror overstepping 
the mark, in that they have removed a link to the tldp site sponsor.  Perhaps 
I am being overzealous.  I cannot remember any other mirrors (linked to from 
the mirrors page) having done this.
I am sure that you will be able to elucidate.
Cheers
Allister

Mail Lists a écrit :

> question.  A site that I have looked at tonight have removed the Ibiblio 
> graphic and link from the bottom left of the index.html page and replaced it 
> with a graphic of their own pointing to their own site.  Now apart from this, 
> this mirror appears to be a good and faithful rendition of the tldp.org site.  
> What I was wondering was whether this was OK,

yes, it's ok. It's the only change to the tldp Web page we accept (the
ads discussed here are on an other frame - if I understand well).

this was discussed here (I should put a link, if I find again the
thread :-)

jdd


-- 
jdd for the Linux Documentation Project
http://wiki.tldp.org
http://www.dodin.net