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 RAA09540 for <LARS.WIRZENIUS@CS.HELSINKI.FI>; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 17:52:33 +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 KAA08727; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:49:26 -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 KAA08501 for <LDP-L@listproc.mail.cornell.edu>; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:46:33 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by cornell.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) id KAA00479 for LDP-L@listproc.mail.cornell.edu; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:48:53 -0400
Received: from simon.cs.cornell.edu (SIMON.CS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.154.10]) by cornell.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA00463 for <LDP-L@cornell.edu>; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:48:52 -0400
Received: from cloyd.cs.cornell.edu (CLOYD.CS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.227.15]) by simon.cs.cornell.edu (8.6.10/R1.01) with ESMTP id KAA28575 for <LDP-L@cornell.edu>; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:48:51 -0400
Received: from thokk.cs.cornell.edu (THOKK.CS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.254.9]) by cloyd.cs.cornell.edu (8.6.10/M1.6) with ESMTP id KAA29601 for <LDP-L@cornell.edu>; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:48:49 -0400
Received: (mdw@localhost) by thokk.cs.cornell.edu (8.6.10/C1.3) id KAA01727 for LDP-L@cornell.edu; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:48:38 -0400
Message-Id: <199507251448.KAA01727@thokk.cs.cornell.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:48:37 EDT
Reply-To: LDP-L@cornell.edu
Sender: owner-LDP-L@cornell.edu
From: mdw@CS.CORNELL.EDU (Matt Welsh)
To: Linux Documentation Project writers  <LDP-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: RE: LDP and FSF and coprights
X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) 
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.0 10/31/90)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN
Content-Length: 1459
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Al Longyear <longyear@NETCOM.COM> writes:
> It strikes me that you are concerned that companies like Yggdrasil will 
> change your work and remove sections which they find commercially 
> undesirable. That they would further print the documentation in such as 
> manner as to have it appear that the documentation was written for their 
> specific package only.

I do not disagree with RMS, Adam, or anybody else that having the ability
to modify the docs with the software (and to fit the software) is good.
I want people to be able to do that, but I'm worried that the editorial
choices made by some people modifying the book might not be good ones.
I wanted to retain the ability to be the "editor" of dericed works.

> Then, if the documentation is modeled after the GPL, and if the GPL is 
> designed to permit the modification, then it follows that the documentation 
> must permit the modification.

I agree with this totally. Unfortunately it's not so cut and dry with
editorial content---technically I have no problems with the book being
changed. 

At any rate, I've decided now to modify the license on the I&GS---when
I get the time to do so! I will leave an "Author's Notes" section at
the front and make certain sections non-modifiable without my permission.
This will only cover a few sections in the introductory section of the
book---little, if any, technical content will be restricted. 

I hope that this will work out for this book. 

mdw
