Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)

[Donnie Barnes <djb@redhat.com>]

> > We are also working on producing an online disccusion area plus licensing
> > issues.
> 
> A new LDP manifesto with a license guide will be written.

I suppose we should identify problems with the current manifesto before
re-writing it.  Some here have problems with it, others (like myself)
like the current one.  I guess the new leader wins?  I personally 
don't care for that structure.

I still feel that any license that conforms to the current manifesto
is fine for the LDP.  If you require a single license *or* require
that the license allow document modification by third parties, I will
no longer consider contributing LDP documentation.  (No, I haven't
done much lately, but I certainly wouldn't consider doing more in the
future, either.)

We've had these arguments a gazillion times.  The LDP was originally
setup more as a set of tools for writing documentation as well as an
archive for the things that were produced.  That allowed the LDP to
enjoy great success in having *the* largest volume of works collected
in one place that were *freely redistributable*.  Your changes will
move the LDP more into the realm of a tightly controlled project with
a much more narrow agenda and likely less works available for consumption.
Sure, they might have better QC, but they may also leave things unanswered
because the document that did have the answers didn't fit the LDP
criteria.  I think that's a shame.


--Donnie

--
  Donnie Barnes  http://www.donniebarnes.com  djb@donniebarnes.com  "Bah."
   Challenge Diversity.  Ignore People.  Live Life.  Use Linux.  879. V. 
    Bats, when dipped in batter and deep fried, still taste pretty bad.



--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org