[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal

Allowing authors to make it so people can not print for commercial
purposes their work. Is not limiting freedom. It is getting paid for the
work that you do.

I am looking at this from the perspective of an author who is trying to
make a living writing Linux documentation. We all seem to forget that not
all of us are hobbyists. It is important to allow people to make a living
and doing what they love. If they love Linux and enjoy creating
documentation for Linux. Why should they not be able to
protect their work, and get compensation for there work?

We are not talking about somebody who is working for RedHat working on the
Gnome project. It is easy to get paid to write software. It is not so easy
to get paid to write documentation.

I think that everyone would agree that documentation is very
important. Quality documentation is more important. We will get higher
quality documentation, if we can "assist" in the financial support of
these authors.

Besides, we are only talking about the ability for an author to limit who
is representing him, commercially.

Maybe <joe> creates a document, and places it under the Open Publication
license with Option B. This is the option that does not allow paper
printing of the document for profit.

IDG and O'reilly approach <joe> about this document and would like to
print it. <joe> doesn't feel that IDG could accurately promote himself or
this document for its technical merits. So he does not give printing
rights to that author.

On the other hand, <joe> really enjoys O'Reilly and the things they have
done for the community.<joe> decides to give O'Reilly printing rights. 

We are really only talking about printing rights here.


On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, jdd wrote:

>Le lun, 24 jui 2000, Guylhem Aznar a écrit :
>> On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 07:26:47PM -0700, Poet/Joshua Drake wrote:
>> > I will not do so. I think the Open Publication is a good license. I think
>> > that option B (but not A) is an excellent option for corporations and
>> > individuals alike.
>> Yet there is a restriction on commercial reprint.
>> Harmless for the LDP; but not free. We shouldn't restrain people from
>> making money with free software !
>example of such problems : I write a tutorial for a Linux formation. I
>want to make my learners read some HOWTO's. I give them the HOWTO in the
>original translated form (translated by the official team). This tutorial
>is NOT free
>Is this allowed by the licence? May I read any HOWTO licence to know what
>to do.
>I think R.S. is right. linuxdoc must be free

<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