[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


I do not think that we are looking for a single license. My understanding
is that we are looking for a set of criteria that the license must meet.
For example I do know that the:

DGPL(When officially released)
and the current LDP

all work.

Personally I don't care what license you use, I just think that if you
drop maintainership of a document that we (THE LDP) have the
right to change the license. The copyright info stays, but the license
itself can change.


<PROJECT>LinuxPorts       - http://www.linuxports.com     </PROJECT>
<WEBMASTER>LDP            - http://www.linuxdoc.org        </WEBMASTER>
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Donnie Barnes wrote:

> > > We are also working on producing an online disccusion area plus licensing
> > > issues.
> > 
> > A new LDP manifesto with a license guide will be written.
> I suppose we should identify problems with the current manifesto before
> re-writing it.  Some here have problems with it, others (like myself)
> like the current one.  I guess the new leader wins?  I personally 
> don't care for that structure.
> I still feel that any license that conforms to the current manifesto
> is fine for the LDP.  If you require a single license *or* require
> that the license allow document modification by third parties, I will
> no longer consider contributing LDP documentation.  (No, I haven't
> done much lately, but I certainly wouldn't consider doing more in the
> future, either.)
> We've had these arguments a gazillion times.  The LDP was originally
> setup more as a set of tools for writing documentation as well as an
> archive for the things that were produced.  That allowed the LDP to
> enjoy great success in having *the* largest volume of works collected
> in one place that were *freely redistributable*.  Your changes will
> move the LDP more into the realm of a tightly controlled project with
> a much more narrow agenda and likely less works available for consumption.
> Sure, they might have better QC, but they may also leave things unanswered
> because the document that did have the answers didn't fit the LDP
> criteria.  I think that's a shame.
> --Donnie
> --
>   Donnie Barnes  http://www.donniebarnes.com  djb@donniebarnes.com  "Bah."
>    Challenge Diversity.  Ignore People.  Live Life.  Use Linux.  879. V. 
>     Bats, when dipped in batter and deep fried, still taste pretty bad.

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