[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revisi
- Subject: RE: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revisi
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:06:50 -0500
- Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
- Resent-Date: 30 Sep 1999 13:07:06 -0000
- Resent-Message-ID: <IKNE-.A.w6H.4B283@murphy>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org 
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 2:11 AM
> To: JKoch@mcp.com
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re:
> Jeff Koch wrote:
> >From the LDP Manifesto page:
> >"Any translation or derived work must be approved by the
> author in writing
> >before distribution."
> This has been taken out of context. The previous paragraph
> states: "Here
> is a ``boilerplate license'' you *may* apply to your work."
> Thus it only
> applies to authors who have copied it into their work. Using grep, I
> can't find a single HOWTO that has used it (as of a few months ago).
> Thus it is not LDP policy nor does it apply to any HOWTOs
> that I have on
> my PC and your comments below are based on a false premise.
My comments below are not based on a false premise. I used the option above
to illustrate how the current licensing practices promote confusion. Just
because people haven't invoked the above option yet doesn't mean that it's
not available and potentially harmful to the overall goals of the LDP. My
overall point was, that without enforcing a consistent license, individual
pieces of the LDP may or may not be free, updatable, whatever.
> >In this case, distribution could mean electronic
> distribution - which means
> >the LDP wouldn't have the right to post a derived work
> without the author's
> >permission. Of course, since the LDP doesn't have a
> consistent license,
> >there's no telling which pieces of the LDP could, or
> couldn't, be updated -
> >unless you want to examine each piece separately. Some of
> the more vocal
> >people on this list have the position that a consistent
> license would make
> >it more difficult to work with the LDP.
> >The fact this topic of conversation is even brought up makes me think
> >differently. After all, if the overall goal of the LDP is to provide
> >high-quality, free information, then the ability to update
> and maintain
> >content easily, and without fear of legal action, is of
> utmost importance.
> >The LDP needs to put rules in place to ensure this happens.
> If authors don't
> >want to play by whatever rules the LDP comes up with, then
> they should post
> >their material elsewhere.
> >Jeff Koch
> >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org