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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 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 Greg Hankins PGP key .