[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Voila! A compromise!
O.k., but so what. People seem to people o.k. with the idea of just
separating the documentation by a flag of some sort.
I say the original compromise, stands. We use some form of identification
that states that the document does not fit in with the FSF definition of
free and that they should check the copyright for any restrictions.
Joshua Drake
>
>However Guylhem's message seems to imply that we accept docs that
>prohibit print publication but segregate them. This is completely
>different than Stallman's proposal. So what are we talking about?
>If I had to choose between the two proposals I would pick Stallman's
>but there are many other alternatives including keeping the existing
>LDP policy. I'll discuss this some more in other posts.
>
>>
>> Joshua Drake
>>
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>
>> > If you guys think it's ok, that would be the best idea :
>> > - non free : any license permitting that we redistribute freely the
>> > document (ex opl a+b)
>> > - ldp : gfdl or opl -a -b only
>> >
>> >I think that segregating the existing non-free documents would be a
>> >very good idea. You could continue to distribute them, but those
>> >of us for whom they are unacceptable would be able to shun them.
>> >Meanwhile, it would give new contributors a very clear message
>> >to make their work free.
>> >
> David Lawyer
>
--
--
<COMPANY>CommandPrompt - http://www.commandprompt.com </COMPANY>
<PROJECT>OpenDocs, LLC. - http://www.opendocs.org </PROJECT>
<PROJECT>LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com </PROJECT>
<WEBMASTER>LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org </WEBMASTER>
--
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.
--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]