discuss: Thread: Re: getting rid of the linuxdoc.org problem vote requested

Rick Moen a écrit :

> At some point, it becomes necessary to distinguish good analysis from
> bad, realise that you cannot make everyone happy, make a decision, and
> live with the consequences.

well.

question: do we replace linuxdoc.org by tldp.org when necessary?

I understand you (rick) vote yes, I (jdd) do also.

please, other people, give your vote at least as indication (we can
also let is as it is...)

answer in a week

thanks
jdd

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

On Monday 01 December 2008 19:28:44 jdd for http://tldp.org wrote:
> question: do we replace linuxdoc.org by tldp.org when necessary?
>
> I understand you (rick) vote yes, I (jdd) do also.
>
> please, other people, give your vote at least as indication (we can
> also let is as it is...)

Yes.
Allister

Hey there,

"jdd for http://tldp.org" ####@####.#### wrote:
> well.
 
> question: do we replace linuxdoc.org by tldp.org when necessary?
 
> I understand you (rick) vote yes, I (jdd) do also.
 
> please, other people, give your vote at least as indication (we can
> also let is as it is...)
 
> answer in a week
 
> thanks

Replace linuxdoc.org with tldp.org in any case where the license
gives you the explicit right to do so. Otherwise, I wouldn't do it if
I were you.

I have written things that I've protected with a Creative Commons
license. I like to believe that I can rely on the license for some
measure of protection - at least in what it explicitly states. I
realize the license itself cannot protect my work, but it certainly
makes my wishes known.

The people who have written documentation for your site have done so
with licenses of their own choosing. From my perusal of your site a
while back, I am under the impression that they were encouraged to do
so in your instructions on how to contribute. This leads me to
believe that anyone who contributed to your site did so with faith
that their work would be protected in the ways they specified.

Although the change you propose is minor, and your intentions are
good, it is still a change. If you make it by going against the
licenses, you risk tarnishing the reputation TLDP has earned as *the*
place to go for documentation (and hence, *the* place to go to
contribute documentation).

I realize that if this went in front of a judge, you'd probably
either get a slap on the wrist or even nothing at all, but the fact
that you did something questionable would be what people would
remember. Also, intentions count for nothing when determining right
and wrong.

One last point is that these licenses were created with the authors
in mind. Every time anyone steps around one of these licenses and
gets away with it, it takes a chip out of the wall of security the
licenses are meant to represent. If enough chips get knocked loose,
there won't be any walls of security. Just a thought...

Now before you go and yell at me for saying nothing but negative
stuff, I have a couple of possible solutions for you:

1. If the licenses allow, place a banner at the top of each page
notifying visitors that the links in the document may be outdated and
that they can click here to go to another page which offers current
links.

2. Create a notice on the front page notifying visitors that links in
some documents may be outdated and that they can click here to go to
another page which offers current links.

3. Modify the agreement you make with authors in future so that there
is some sort of contact clause that transfers rights to TLDP or
requires TLDP to remove the document from the site if the author is
unreachable after a certain amount of time/effort.

4. Modify the agreement you make with authors in future so that TLDP
has certain editorial rights (like updating links) as long as those
edits are fully commented to let visitors know it was TLDP and not
the author who made the change.

-- 
Little Girl

There is no spoon.

Quoting Little Girl ####@####.####

> Although the change you propose is minor, and your intentions are
> good, it is still a change. If you make it by going against the
> licenses, you risk tarnishing the reputation TLDP has earned as *the*
> place to go for documentation (and hence, *the* place to go to
> contribute documentation).

Hypothetically, if the nature of the change were solely to remove the
"<a href=" tags from a document's links to linuxdoc.org, do you seriously
think this would "risk tarnishing [LDP's] reputation"?

In that scenario, I think any of us, here, would be able to make short
work of demolishing any criticism.


> Also, intentions count for nothing when determining right and wrong.

No, (perceived) intentions count for nothing in determining whether a
tort of any sort occurred.  But otherwise, they can and do count for a
great deal.

> 2. Create a notice on the front page notifying visitors that links in
> some documents may be outdated and that they can click here to go to
> another page which offers current links.

A long-ago boss of mine had a humourous expression for such things:
"almost useful", by which he meant, "in effect, not useful at all".


> 3. Modify the agreement you make with authors in future so that there
> is some sort of contact clause that transfers rights to TLDP or
> requires TLDP to remove the document from the site if the author is
> unreachable after a certain amount of time/effort.

First of all, for such an agreement (i.e., one reassigning copyright
ownership -- I assume that's what you're talking about) to have legal
effect in (at least) the USA, it would have to be signed by the
copyright holder.  Which is why one ends up faxing in copyright
assignment agreements, if writing paid articles for typical technology
magazines.

Second, an effort to do anything even remotely like that with LDP
authors would be, in my view, instantly fatal to LDP's effort to attract
new submissions.  Vanishingly few authors will be willing to bother with
LDP if LDP requires contributors to "transfer rights".  We pay people
only in recognition, gratitude, and the satifaction of a job well done.
Putting that sort of hassle and burden in contributors' way would be a
mistake of the first magnitude.


> 4. Modify the agreement you make with authors in future so that TLDP
> has certain editorial rights (like updating links)....

I believe there's consensus to require (at minimum) any sort of
genuinely free licence in the future.  Doing so solves the problem
prospectively.

By the way, although I acknowledge the (occasional but rare) legitimate
value of pseudonymity on the Internet, are you willing to supply a real
name for yourself?  I assume you have a reason for your handle and
really don't need (or want) to hear it, but inevitably you'll find
yourself working against a skeptical reception pretty much everywhere.

(Don't bother trying to convince me such skepticism is wrong; it isn't.  
See:  http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/2006-January/001709.html)

jdd for http://tldp.org wrote:

> Rick Moen a écrit :
> 
> > At some point, it becomes necessary to distinguish good analysis from
> > bad, realise that you cannot make everyone happy, make a decision, and
> > live with the consequences.
> 
> well.
> 
> question: do we replace linuxdoc.org by tldp.org when necessary?
> 
> I understand you (rick) vote yes, I (jdd) do also.
> 
> please, other people, give your vote at least as indication (we can
> also let is as it is...)

yes. replace.

-- 

John Eikenberry
####@####.#### - http://zhar.net]
______________________________________________________________
"Perfection is attained, not when no more can be added, but when no more can be
removed." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery