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

[Guylhem Aznar <guylhem@oeil.qc.ca>]

On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:45:32AM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote:
> You already know how I stand on this matter. I think it is counterproductive,
> but I wouldn't oppose it so long as it could be decided, but the copyright
> holder(s), on a document by document basis and not be a blanket arrangement.

I'd like to add this if companies decided to offer documents (on which
they own copyrights) to the LDP, but wanted printing exclusivity.

This would be really counterproductive and "non free", while a short term
exclusivity could make it better for anyone.

> This is a little silly to state. Firstly, it's already covered by the
> notion of a free document. Secondly it's only allowable if the license for
> the document in question allows it (kinda the same point from another angle)

But it is not clear enough.

> What is lacking is a clear definition of what that minimum standard is, ie
> precisely what the freedoms that a document license *must* allow are.

That's why the manifesto needs updates.

> forward. The License issue, which has been around for some time now (years)
> has to be addressed.

I think we need to fix this before starting anything else.

Please submit your ideas to David Lawyer who is working on the
manifesto.

> Is there any good reason why we can't use the OpenSource Definition?

Documentation is not software.

-- 
Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org
               Clef PGP/PGP key:    http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem
               Chez moi/At home:    guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca
Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor.org

PGP signature