[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Critique of draft GNU Free Documentation License v1.0
I don't see any purpose in removing the requirement for notification
from the LDP suggested License. The LDP suggested License is just that a
suggestion, and for many works well. IMHO it should be a requirement for
someone to notify me if they want to modify and distribute my document.
I do understand the point of the dead link, but I am not sure what a
real solution to this problem would be.
> Another problem with the requirement to notify a specific person or
> place is that it is unfair to others who are maintaining their own
> versions. If the requirement specifies notification of the original
> developer, it is unfair to anyone who maintains an alternate version.
> On the other hand, if someone who makes a modified version can
> update the notification address to point to himself, then it becomes
> unfair to the developer of the original version.
Frankly, I don't see this at all. I do not believe that it is unfair to
expect as a developer, at a minimum, notification of alternate version
of the software.
I am not sure where unfair comes into play here.
> And if the original developer disappears, it becomes a dead pointer.
> And also for the sake of cooperation between the LDP and the Free
> Software Movement, I ask the LDP to please remove this requirement
> from the recommended license.
I personally will not remove it as it is not my place, however if it
were come to argument, I would argue against removing the clause.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
<PROJECT>LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com </PROJECT>
<WEBMASTER>LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org </WEBMASTER>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org