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

[Terry Dawson <terry@albert.animats.net>]

On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 01:52:42PM -0400, Donnie Barnes wrote:

> I still feel that any license that conforms to the current manifesto
> is fine for the LDP.  If you require a single license *or* require
> that the license allow document modification by third parties, I will
> no longer consider contributing LDP documentation.  (No, I haven't
> done much lately, but I certainly wouldn't consider doing more in the
> future, either.)

I agree entirely that the LDP should have a base set of license requirements
that determine whether a document is considered acceptable or not. But I
don't believe that the current manifesto (ie, the one that is actually
published at www.linuxdoc.org) actuallys says that. What it says is much more
prescriptive.

> We've had these arguments a gazillion times.  The LDP was originally
> setup more as a set of tools for writing documentation as well as an
> archive for the things that were produced.  That allowed the LDP to

That certainly isn't how I remember it being set up. It started with a
desire to create free linux documentation the way I recall the conversation
at the time. The tools came later, not first.

The meme was free linux documentation. The tools were just implements to
achieve that in a relatively standard way.

Terry

-- 
terry@albert.animats.net, terry@linux.org.au


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