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

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

> Donnie Barnes wrote:
> >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.

David Wheeler wrote:
> The current "license" is total garbage.  As Linux becomes more widely
> used, you'd better figure out how to make an accurate license, set of
> licenses, or criteria for a license.  Otherwise people will line up
> to sue or misuse you.  How is it garbage? Let me count the ways:

Pardon me, but you seem to have the word "manifesto" confused with
"license".  AFAIK there is *no* LDP "license", and it is my goal to
keep it that way.  Well, there certainly can be a suggested one, but
I don't want any required one.  

David Wheeler wrote:
> 1. Most seriously, the current license does NOT permit others to
> distribute unchanged documents, even though that seems to be
> the point of the project.  That's stupid, and needs fixing.
> Think that's just a minor legal nit and wouldn't be exploited? You're naive.
> The U.S. in particular is lawsuit-happy.

Are you talking to me?  Because if you are, you're basing your end of
the conversation on all kinds of assumptions that appear to be wrong.

I'll just delete the rest of your "points" and you can argue them with
someone else.  The don't appear valid to argue with anyone since there
is no standard LDP license covering all works.  I license my documents,
you license yours.  If you have a problem with a license on a document
of *mine*, then we'll talk.  But nothing you quoted came off a document
of mine.

David Wheeler wrote:
> Most people don't want to write licenses, and they're hard to get right.
> At least provide a default" license & guidelines for minimum acceptability.
> I'd rather write code & docs, not licenses.

Again, that's fine with me.  The "manifesto" includes guidelines for
minimum acceptability.  There are already plenty of licenses out there
that meet those for you to choose from.  You can write your own if you
want.  This is exactly the situation I *like*.  If the LDP wants to
have a suggested license (or a set of them), that's fine to.  What I
don't want is the LDP to REQUIRE A PARTICULAR license.

> Mr. Poet wrote:
> >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.

David Wheeler wrote:
> If _that's_ what you want, then you must say so in a license.
> Otherwise, the author has the right to never update a document again.
> Which indeed is what's happening.

Whoa!  Watch your quoting, pal.  I didn't write any of the above, but
your quoting implies that I did.  (I inserted the "...wrote:" stuff to
clear that up.)


  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