Re: Critique of draft GNU Free Documentation License v1.0


Wade Hampton (whampton@staffnet.com)
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:56:36 -0500


Kim Lester wrote:
>
> This is outside my domain and perhaps I should just keep quiet but...
>
> The more rules and requirements that must be adhered to comply
> with a "free/open" etc document license the less appealing and
> useful it is.
>
> With specific regards to the proposed clauses for derivation of
> works I have these comments:
>
> Placing the burden of contact on someone trying to derive a work
> from a "free" published text makes it just too hard. People
> change email addresses/move states/countries etc. Some don't have
> access to email. This rule hobbles those who might most benefit
> from using the documents. Impractical clauses are worse than
> no clauses.
>
> (And of course there are those who would ignore such requirements
> anyway because they were too hard and copy/edit anyway)
>
> My suggestion (and I admit I'm not a lawyer, just practical) would
> be to specify that each document require the author and every
> subsequent editor to be listed (name, date, possibly email, and a
> one line summary of changes and/or % changed)
And the original author's piece must be maintained somewhere unless
the document is superceeding the orignal, i.e., the original
author is turning the document over to someone else....
Without this requirement, someone could subvert an original piece
or make changes for their own needs (security docs come to mind).

Cheers,

-- 
W. Wade, Hampton  <whampton@staffnet.com>  
Support:  Linux Knowledge Base Organization  http://linuxkb.org/
Linux is stability, performance, flexibility, and overall very fun!
The difference between `Unstable' and `Usable' is only two characters:
NT



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Jan 12 2000 - 15:57:44 EST