Re: ODE - requirement for Editors


Martin Wheeler (mwheeler@startext.co.uk)
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 23:52:39 +0000 (GMT)


der.hans wrote:

> I think it's better for the author/maintainer to maintain the document
> taking corrections from the editor than the other way around. This allows
> for the fastest content correction.

I thoroughly agree.

> In cases where the author can't or
> won't do the appropriate markup the editor could become the
> maintainer.

I actually hope for a tighter symbiosis than that -- writer must be able to work
with editor must be able to work with writer, or we get nowhere at all. Each
should be perfectly happy with the other's contribution to the common text.

> This opens lots of those license issues as well :(.

Unfortunately -- yes.
I'm all in favour of the "saying nothing at all is preferable to a licence which
is open to being misconstrued" approach. As far as I'm concerned, this is all about
producing open (i.e. restriction-free) texts. There *is* a case for turfing out
or placing in a separate category anything which has the slightest restriction
placed on it -- a` la debian non-free packages. Doesn't prevent anyone from
accessing and using them, but they live in a carefully marked-off world of their own.

msw

--
Martin Wheeler       -       StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England
mwheeler@startext.co.uk                      http://www.startext.co.uk/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Jan 11 2000 - 20:05:43 EST