Re: Manifesto License Requirements (was Re: Manifesto / policyissues)

[Poet/Joshua Drake <poet@linuxports.com>]

>     * Content modification must be allowed, although non-modifiable
>       parts are permitted

	I don't agree with this. It conflicts with the non-free section
that has been agreed on.


>     * Redistribution, both commercial and noncommercial, must be allowed
>     * The license must propagate to derived works

	This also conflicts with the non-free section we agreed on.

>The basic requirement of allowing anyone to make copies and distribute
>the documents is not even mentioned in the draft (even for docs which
>would go into our "free" section).
>
>   Licenses that do not meet these recommendations are allowed, but
>   documents employing these licenses are archived separately under
>   "non-free".
>
>We can't just allow any license (or no license).  Anything we accept
>should have a license which permits copying and distribution of the
>doc by anyone.

Electronic distribution yes. Commercial Paper distribution no. If the
author chooses.

>
>

I guess what I don't understand is why we can not just say, for the
document to placed in the free section it must adhere to the OpenSource
Definitiaon of Open Source.



-- 
--
<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 ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org