[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Critique of draft GNU Free Documentation License v1.0
- To: ,
- Subject: Re: Critique of draft GNU Free Documentation License v1.0
- From: Alessandro Rubini <>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:25:55 +0100
- Organization: Free Lance in Pavia, Italy.
- Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
- Resent-Date: 12 Jan 2000 08:26:44 -0000
- Resent-Message-ID: <JLsqQ.A.LAB.ErDf4@murphy>
> I don't see any purpose in removing the requirement for notification
> from the LDP suggested License. The LDP suggested License is just that a
This is nonsense. A suggestion must be a good suggestion. Therefore,
if we agree that the requirement is optional and is better not used,
the suggested license should not include it.
> IMHO it should be a requirement for someone to notify me if they
> want to modify and distribute my document.
I'm definitely against that requirement, and I already explained why
on this list. I'll repeat.
While your requirement might look a negligible burden for the author
of a modified work, and might look sensible if you think that everyone
modifying a document is going to seek maximum diffusion of such
derived work, the world is different from that.
Not everything happens on the Internet, and a big use of good document
is outside of the net. For such environments, the requirement to
notify the author may be as discouraging as to just drop reuse of the
document. For example, I used parts of the NET-3-HOWTO in classes
about TCP/IP; how would Terry care about that "modification and
Reuse in teching is, I think, pretty common, but not every teacher is
connected, sometimes they just got the docs on their GNU/Linux CD.
Unfortunately, well-connected people like you tend to forget about
If "free" documents require notification when they are modified, they
are not free any more for the majority of people in this world.
> [...] I do not believe that it is unfair to expect as a developer,
> at a minimum, notification of alternate version of the software.
Please remember that a derived work may be similar to the original,
but may even not be. I reused the interrupt-sharing algorithms of
the Linux kernel; should I notify Linus of this derived work?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com