Re: Voila! A compromise!

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Poet/Joshua Drake wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> >    If you guys think it's ok, that would be the best idea :
> >     - non free : any license permitting that we redistribute freely the
> >       document (ex opl a+b)
> >     - ldp : gfdl or opl -a -b only
> >
> >I think that segregating the existing non-free documents would be a
> >very good idea.  You could continue to distribute them, but those
> >of us for whom they are unacceptable would be able to shun them.
> >Meanwhile, it would give new contributors a very clear message
> >to make their work free.
> 
> So,
> 
> Is there anyone who has a problem with this?

Yes. The segregation, like the Howto/minHowto split, will complicate
finding and indexing things. It also restricts authors, in my view
unnecessarily.

Obviously, if one is GPLing one's software, the primary docs for it
-- man pages, info pages, whatever -- will have a matching license.
The primary docs for software with a different license -- such as X
or Perl -- will have a license matching that. When the LDP deals
with these primary docs, it just lives with whatever license they
have.

However, the LDP deals mainly with secondary docs -- HowTos, Guides,
etc. For secondary docs, the license need not match that of the
software. All the LDP needs to worry about is whether the doc is
useful.

A document is useful in the LDP if it can freely be:

	distributed electronically
	included in CD or other media distributions
	printed by users

Restrictions on modification may reduce this usefulness, but do not 
eliminate it. Restrictions on paper publication do not even reduce
it. 

Set a minimum standard, eg. OPL with both conditions. Accept anything
that meets it. Reject anything else.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org