Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)

[terry@albert.animats.net]

On 29 Sep, Guylhem Aznar wrote:

> If we're given a clear date, it could be interesting.

Interesting or not, I still think it's a compromise of what I consider
to be *the* core principle of the LDP. True freedom of the documentation
*now* is what I believe the intrinsic value of the LDP to be. Without
freedom the LDP is just another documentation project.

By allowing this sort of compromise to commercial publishing all you'll
do is discourage people from bothering with free guides, instead if
they're going to put a lot of work into a guide they'll just go off an
organise a commercial deal first.

I'm guessing you think the counter argument is that nothing stops
people going off and doing that now and having the result totally
non-free and therefore of no benefit at all to the LDP.

I think it's interesting to note that the only people who have taken
the LDP material, published it and even returned a share back to the
LDP have been the small independent publishers who are most sensitive
to competition.

A move to this model would annihiliate them. The LDP would be populated
with works that they could not publish while they are most valuable
(new and topical) and they do not have the resources to independently
commission works.

How does this help the LDP?

> Maybe you'd prever this to be in the manifesto?

I think it should be stated in the Manifesto as a statement of
principle, yes. I've no problem with the LDP providing a model license,
I think that's a great idea. But the relationship between the LDP
principles of free documentation and the license needs to be made
unambigous.

Terry

-- 
terry@albert.animats.net, terry@linux.org.au



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