Re: Boilerplate License Revision Proposal

[David Lawyer <dave@lafn.org>]

> 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.
> 
Note that the LDP Manifesto permits the use of option A (but
discourages it since option A prohibits modification).  The LDP
Manifesto does not allow the use of option B that Poet says is "an
excellent option".  I think that option B is a poor option.

On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 09:28:51PM -0400, Guylhem Aznar wrote:
> 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 !

I think it's a good thing to restrain people from making money in some
cases.  For example, if they were making excessive profits from it.
However, this is not the case for LDP documents since the books
containing them seem to be low in price.

If authors sold the rights for commercial reprint, then the price for
the books would likely be higher even though profits would still be
made.  There are two reasons for higher prices:
1. The cost of paying the author
2. The monopoly right to commercially print the document and prohibit
   anyone else from doing so (prohibit competition).

Permitting the free copying of such works by all tends to keep
the prices for commercial reprints down and thus benefits the public.
That's why I support our current policy of rejecting option B, etc.

			David Lawyer


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