Re: Voila! A compromise!

[David Lloyd <lloy0076@rebel.net.au>]

David et all:

> > 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.

I don't oppose people writing documents that are only distributable by
commercial means. However, I believe that the free software movement and
its documentation needs to display the following properties:

* ANYONE must be able to take it and modify it
* NOONE should be able to take away that right

This is something that the Linux community takes for granted in
software. I'm not opposed to a person who actually sells the
documentation in printed form but makes a downloadable version available
for free. I can choose to download it and print it myself or buy a
preprinted version. I do believe, however, that the documentation
packaged with GPL'ed or LGPL'ed software should be modifiable at
source...

I say let those who wish to have a restrictive, do not modify the source
stance in LDP documentation turn to publishers such as O'Reilly or
MacMillan and actually make money out of their creation; let the
documentation remain source open with the only restriction being that it
remain so whatever you do with it...

DL
-- 
X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org