Return-Path: owner-LDP-L@cornell.edu
Received: from listproc.mail.cornell.edu (LISTPROC.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.14]) by keos.cs.Helsinki.FI (8.6.10/H46) with ESMTP id DAA02302 for <LARS.WIRZENIUS@CS.HELSINKI.FI>; Mon, 10 Jul 1995 03:14:50 +0300
Received: from localhost.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by listproc.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA04267; Sun, 9 Jul 1995 20:12:27 -0400
Received: from cornell.edu (cornell.edu [132.236.56.6]) by listproc.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA04249 for <LDP-L@listproc.mail.cornell.edu>; Sun, 9 Jul 1995 20:12:16 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by cornell.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) id UAA13907 for LDP-L@listproc.mail.cornell.edu; Sun, 9 Jul 1995 20:14:28 -0400
Received: from burdell.cc.gatech.edu (root@burdell.cc.gatech.edu [130.207.3.207]) by cornell.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA13903 for <LDP-L@cornell.edu>; Sun, 9 Jul 1995 20:14:27 -0400
Received: from anacreon.cc.gatech.edu (gregh@anacreon.cc.gatech.edu [130.207.3.208]) by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA03452; Sun, 9 Jul 1995 20:14:26 -0400
Received: (from gregh@localhost) by anacreon.cc.gatech.edu (8.6.10/8.6.9) id UAA27734; Sun, 9 Jul 1995 20:14:23 -0400
Message-Id: <199507100014.UAA27734@anacreon.cc.gatech.edu>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 20:14:23 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: LDP-L@cornell.edu
Sender: owner-LDP-L@cornell.edu
From: gregh@cc.gatech.edu (Greg Hankins)
To: Linux Documentation Project writers  <LDP-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Yggdrasil Pressure on the LDP
In-Reply-To: <199507092331.TAA00328@thokk.cs.cornell.edu> from "Matt Welsh" at Jul 9, 95 07:31:04 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Cc: adam@yggdrasil.com
X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) 
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 PGP2]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN
Content-Length: 2139
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Matt Welsh writes:
>We discussed it. As I seem to recall, the general consensus was that
>it's still much better for us to maintain these documents under a 
>no-modification license. It saves us a lot of headaches and allows
>us to maintain the "one true version" saving the community and
>the end-user from a lot of confusion. We also believe that the LDP
>manuals reflect our personal views and writing style quite directly,
>and allowing anyone to modify the manuals and release changed
>versions without our prior approval could turn into a bad situation---
>
>Yes, but not of the nature of the changes themselves. The changes could
>be written in a very poor, unclear style or somehow allude to a 
>philosophical standpoint that the original author does not intend. 

I agree with Matt completely.  From the HOWTO maintenance standpoint, I can
only imagine what a nightmare it would be if Joe Random sent me an update
to the Foo-HOWTO.  Adam is trying to apply the GPL to something that it
can't apply too - writing.  Writing (docs) is not like code.  Writing
caries with it a flow and style, this can be seriously disrupted if the
changes don't come from the original author.  Matt also raises the point
that the writings reflect our personal views and philosophical standpoints
and beliefs.

Software also has it's own style, but it's not as visible to the end user 
as documentation.  I don't think that the personal beliefs and style
and flow are (as much as) an issue for GPLed software.  Even the GNU
tools have maintainers... I don't know what is wrong with having HOWTO
or LDP maintainer for their documents.

Adam, what exactly did you want to be able to do with the LDP docs that
you could do if they were GPLed, but you can't do now?

Greg

-- 
Greg Hankins (greg.hankins@cc.gatech.edu)  |  Georgia Institute of Technology
Computing and Networking Services          |  College of Computing, room 213
+1 404 853 9989                            |  Atlanta, GA 30332-0280 
<A HREF="http://www.cc.gatech.edu/staff/h/Greg.Hankins/">Greg Hankins</A>
<A HREF="http://www.cc.gatech.edu/staff/h/Greg.Hankins/pubkey.asc">PGP key</A>
