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

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

On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 12:04:49PM +1000, terry@albert.animats.net wrote:
> I'm guessing you think the counter argument is that nothing stops
> people going off and doing that now and having the result totally
> non-free and therefore of no benefit at all to the LDP.

Right.

> I think it's interesting to note that the only people who have taken
> the LDP material, published it and even returned a share back to the
> LDP have been the small independent publishers who are most sensitive
> to competition.
> A move to this model would annihiliate them. The LDP would be populated
> with works that they could not publish while they are most valuable
> (new and topical) and they do not have the resources to independently
> commission works.

Honestly I didn't think about that.

I did hope we could have more documents, and even full books with a free
license.

Now I'm not that sure, maybe we should discuss it more.

> I think it should be stated in the Manifesto as a statement of
> principle, yes. I've no problem with the LDP providing a model license,
> I think that's a great idea. But the relationship between the LDP
> principles of free documentation and the license needs to be made
> unambigous.

Ok ; David could you please add a paragraph in the manifesto?

-- 
Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project: http://www.linuxdoc.org
PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem ; Email: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca
To submit new HOWTOs to the LDP, mail ldp-submit@lists.linuxdoc.org

PGP signature