[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Licensing issues
- Subject: Re: Licensing issues
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:08:26 +1000 (EST)
- Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
- Resent-Date: 20 Sep 1999 21:08:42 -0000
- Resent-Message-ID: <H4T9-D.A.NAF.aJq53@murphy>
On 20 Sep, Donnie Barnes wrote:
> Folks, look. This has been beaten to death here and on many other
> mailing lists. Documentation is not software. Sure, in some cases it
> is *like* software when folks are collaborating to work on it. Most
> of the time that is *not* the case, however. Where it is the case,
> folks can certainly license their docs so that they are modifiable if
> they wish.
.. and no concensus was reached then, at least not on the ldp-l
list. Collaboration is completely irrelevant to the definition.
> I don't care to go into the debate on why we need to avoid this *again*.
> Suffice it to say that documentation IS NOT software. Leave people the
> ability to choose and let the LDP have the most useful documentation it
> can reasonably have.
Unmodifiable documents are uneditable/untransformable/untypesettable
documents. Documents must be modifiable if they are to published in any
form other than that which the author produces.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org