Re: ODE - requirement for Editors


Wade Hampton (whampton@staffnet.com)
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:14:55 -0500


Martin Wheeler wrote:
>
> 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.

Maybe a DGPL -- GPL for documents, like the LGPL, plus some other
alternatives.
DGPL might allow translations provided original is provided, plus allow
changes
provided original is provided?

Maybe in the author's kit, include 3-4 licenses (GPL, DGPL, BSD, none,
...),
make recommendations, but in the end, it has to be up to the author of
the
document.

-- 
W. Wade, Hampton  <whampton@staffnet.com>  

Linux is new, it's come out of nowhere, it's free. Hard to beat that price. And it's taking marketshare left and right.

--Microsoft's lawyer, in closing argument, Bristol v. Microsoft, http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/bti/07-15closing.htm



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Jan 12 2000 - 14:16:01 EST