Slashdot Mirror
The LDP and Debian
Guylhem writes: "The former LDP license was the first license used for our documentation. While we are now recommending the GNU FDL and the OPL 1 without options A or B, many documents are still licensed under the LDPL. David Merril, our Collection Coordinator, noticed that the LDPL is "not free" according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
We have to get in touch with the authors as soon as possible or 2/3 of the LDP document collection will be removed from the base Debian distribution because the code freeze is happening in 2 days. Maybe some of the LDP unreachable authors are reading slashdot and could take 1 minute to submit an updated document licensed under the FDL or OPL v1 -A -B ? Another solution is to find volunteers to rewrite from scratch the concerned documents."
who is *so tired* of hearing about how some free license is sublty not free enough for somebody else's purposes? This self-important bullshit ought to stop: It's not a big deal, get back to hacking code.
Would they really use a code freeze as an excuse for putting out a release with the majority of it's documentation removed?
Surely not. I would think the intelligent thing to do would be to set a seperate freeze date for the documentation.
Do a majority of open source software users actually pay attention to the licenses of the software packages they utilize? I use a lot of GPL applications yet I have never really sat down an actually read the entire GPL. However, I do understand that if I do violate the GPL, I have to put up with Richard Stallman breathing down my neck. Not appealing idea! Am I alone in a crowd? Does everyone read the software license?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
As far as I understand, just using the application is no problem, and you really don't need to be concerned with the license other than knowing it exists. You DO need to pay close attention to the license if you are planning on modifying/releasing any of the source code for the GPL applications.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
They aren't a company. They believe in Free Software specific to certain licenses, it's an ideal more than a product. They'd be hypocritical if they didn't do this.
"Another solution is to find volunteers to rewrite from scratch the concerned documents"
... and easier to explain to your mother than kernel hacking.
Nothing like the glory of writing the help files. Its the most visisble part of any program
Cruise TT
they are a non-profit organization so they do not have to worry about stuff of that nature. if they were a company they would have failed a long time ago because of their inflexable Ethos which is a good thing for what they are.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
I do. Some of the licenses for proprietary software are laughworthy. The MS Word license used to, and maybe still does, contain a line that went something like "This software is not to be used for operation of nuclear power plants".
Best Slashdot Co
That is why Debian is not a company and that is also why they are so cool. BTW this does not mean that the docs will not be there it just means that you will have to add non-free to your sources list. I know of very few people who don't have non-free in their sources list anyway and so it would not look like a change to a person installing or using Debian. It would all still be there just not in main anymore.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Documentation is not Software.. so why does it have to follow the free software guidelines?
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm quite pleased with my Debian distribution but I'm also tired of the RMS-like stubborness in regards to licensing and such. If this stuff continues I may move off to a different distribution (my friend says Slackware is shipping with 2.4 kernels!....hehehe).
While I'm not overly concerned about the docs not being on the medium, perhaps there are those who are installing at a single-computer home without access to the internet. This "conform to our license or else get booted from the dist" is extreme.
"...and generally behaved in a manner one can only describe as despicable." - February 27 2001, Michael Sims
I'm probably missing something obvious but I see no conflict between the Debian policy and old LDP license. The license grants the right to freely distribute the original and none of the restrictions it has for derived works conflict with the Debian policy.
What am I missing?
Guess it's time to hunt down some links about this.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Am I missing something? Or does this sound to anyone else like it would have been noticed before? (Especially among the Debian crowd?)
Also, this isn't something to stop the code freeze for? I thought code freezes were done to get everything in order for releasing the next version. Clearly, not everything is ready, so it would make sense to me not to freeze the code...
an updated version without documentation wouldn't be much of an updated version!
libertarianswag.com
It requires derived works to be labeled as such, and credit to the original authors be given, and several other things along those lines.
Now.. those are all fair, and nice.. but are in conflict with the 'free software' guidelines.
I still maintian, though, Documentation is not Software... and to treat it by the same standards is wrong.
So if I want to write a OPE with the DLP or FOL, under option 2a or 17f of the GRL, will the ODP tell me I'm SOL? I want to make sure that FOE and OAF are OAL, otherwise the project might be APO. Just making sure.
over documentation's License? Sheesh.
How 'bout just more documentation. Has the man page entry for logout been written yet?
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Do a majority of open source software users actually pay attention to the licenses of the software packages they utilize?
You don't need to read the GPL, or even agree to it, if you are just using GPL software, it's only when you copy software do you need a licence from the original copyright owner.
From the GPL:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
I know I'm being completely unreasonable, but wouldn't it be grand to stop dealing with so much legal mumbo-jumbo and lining the pockets of scores of lawyers who end up making bucks off of licensing disputes?
Is human and corporate morality so lacking that we REALLY need this stuff? I don't do much with licensing myself and if I start to I hope to god it isn't as bad as it seems. If someone is only asking for credit, and not giving them a bad name, is it really violated that often? I mean, I present my source code, and just say "Use it, if you change it or want to distribute it let me know." I think that should be more than sufficient. This licensing crap just seems like it is merely a leading indicator of our complete inability to regulate ourselves on a personal and ethical level.
Perhaps it's just me dreaming about a non-defunct human race, but step back for a second and take a moment to realize how pitiful this truly is.
With a free license, you don't need to read it. The point of a free software license is that all it does is remove certain copyright restrictions from you. So, if you just use the software, and don't redistribute or modify it, there is no need to read the license as the use is subject to normal copyright law.
In theory, you don't even have to agree to the license, i.e. you can decide to be subject to normal copyright restriction instead. The GPL explicitly offers you this possibility:
"You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."
I think not having to worry about license issues if you just use the software is one of the biggest advantages of free software for non-developers. I also believe it is a good thing that Debian insists on 100% free software, because it makes sure that by just installing and using the software on as many computers as you like you will never violate any copyrights. I am however not so happy to see that Debian decides to enforce this policy two days before feature freeze...
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
As an author of several documents, with several more in the pipeline, I find myself remarkably unmoved by this self-inflicted crisis even though I use Debian myself.
The problem is that Debian is quickly becoming just as bad as Microsoft in terms of insisting that everyone play the games by their rules, freezing out everyone else. Wanting to keep the core distribution "pure" is one thing, but the zealots are clearly driving out the pragmatists. I'm getting *real* tired of reinventing tools to get around artifical constraints, and if it weren't for apt I would have switched distros long ago.
Now they suddenly announce that since 2/3 of LDP does not satisfy their definition of "free," they're going to drop them. Not move them into "non-free," drop them outright. The only way to avoid this is for authors to drop everything else in their life to make these changes.
And, rubbing salt in this wound, this question was clearly written by one of the persons responsible for dropping these documents. Yet he doesn't feel the need to actually provide a link to a list of the documents in question. We're clearly supposed to waste even more time trying to track down that list on the Debian site because this guy can't be bothered to provide the link in his message.
The message is clear: the volunteer authors are stupid (choosing the 'wrong' license, even though it was the best available at the time, and then not rushing to change it immediately once the Debian gods spoke from on high), and we don't even deserve the courtesy of having a list prepared that we can quickly check.
I'm real motivated to check my licenses now. Let me pencil it in - 2PM, December 5, 2184. Unless it's really urgent, in which case I'll just add a quick clause prohibiting its distribution within a Debian package and force this into a moot issue.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Well good for the zealots. Good for the radicals. Good for the people that want to do the right thing. I'll just go on using my usable and friendly distributions, like SuSE.
Honestly, Debian has always held appeal for me. I just can't get beyond the chest tumping, the politics, and the general sense of rabid fanaticism that pervades the project.
One argument I've heard is that I can go get the projects and packages that I want and weren't included. But please, I'm tired of installing a distribution, then installing 10 or 20 new packages on top of that.
Enough rambling. I have important things to do now. Like drink. And moderate. But all in moderaton.
The middle mind speaks!
Somehow I doubt RMS sees the irony. I wrote a short piece about this back on March 31, 1999: Why "GNU/Linux" is a Misnomer In the 2.5 years since then, the FSF still has not released a GNU distribution, relying instead on the Debian project to do what they won't.
Given that "The GNU Project" doesn't credit the X Window System anywhere in its name, RMS has no moral high ground to stand on when he demands that all Linux-based systems be referred to as "GNU/Linux" systems.
It's doubly ironic that the older BSD license was incompatible with the GPL specifically because of the so-called "advertising clause" that requires credit be given for the BSD-licensed software.
Isn't it funny how RMS feels it isn't necessary to credit BSD or X Windows, yet demands such credit for the GNU project? It's disingenuous hypocrisy, through and through. If someone makes a free software distribution, they should be able to call it anything they want, whether "GNU", "Linux", "BSD" or anything else is included in the name.
After all, wasn't this all supposed to be about freedom? I guess that doesn't include the freedom to choose the name...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
A-fucking-men.
IAAL,BIANLY
This is the reason that so many open source style projects get so bungled up. I have a great appreciation for Debian. It was my introduction to Linux, and I'll always keep one or two Debian systems around me. But they are always so far behind. And things like this "rewrite" are one of the primary reasons why.
Why go an re-invent the wheel everytime someone puts a different type of nut on it from what you like? Work with the people to get it the way you want it. Don't go throwing a temper tantrum, tossing away a perfectly good bit of software/documentation/whatever and screaming, "You no good, me do better!" Not only is it childish, it's also extremely narrow minded and wasteful of resources.
As other posters are pointing out, it's not like this couldn't have been dealt with sooner than two days before the code freeze. This is something that should have been dealt with a long time ago if it needed to be dealt with. Instead it comes across like a last minute bid for attention. "HEY EVERYONE! I'M GOING TO THROW A USELESS FIT ABOUT SOMETHING STUPID! Oh, and by the way, we've got this code freeze coming up..."
Sorry, this just seems a little ridiculous to me.
Bite my yammer.
But, even in this case, the FSF (RMS himself probably wouldn't get involved), if it holds the copyright on the code, would most likely just ask you to comply.
The worst I've seen is explicit withdrawl of permission by the FSF (on FSF copyright code) to use the code until someone is assigned from within the offender's organization to receive GPL training from the FSF.
Finally, the FSF does not drag your name through the mud, as it were, if you make an honest mistake.
And yes, I speak with some degree of authority on the by RMS to a former employer's developers.
You could've hired me.
And what code do you hack? I'm getting rather tired of self-important Slashdot posters who feel that these slackers should go back in the kitchen and bake some pie. We, the coders of various open source and/or free software applications write the code for our own reasons. If you don't like the code or don't feel that it's up to your standards/schedules, then don't use it. We'll be just as happy either way.
Thank you.
As one who uses debian (testing + some unstable packages compiled from source) at both work and home extensively I, for one, appreciate all that the debian developers do, and the fact that they are so precise (some might say pedantic) about software and documentation licenses. In this way I, as a system administrator, have a very easy time keeping my employer compliant to any and all licenses. Come audit time, that is a very nice feeling indeed.
So yes, we who work in the real world with Free Software, Open Source, and commercial products in fact benefit very directly and very immediately from such vigilence, and I for one appreciate it greatly.
Yes, catching this faux pas earlier in the release cycle would have been nice, but for whatever reason that did not happen. Oh well. So the packages move from main to non-free. They're still available if they're really needed, but for those of us in commercial environments using GNU/Linux for something other than hobbiest tinkering such distinctions are well founded and important, and having that explicit division between free (as in freedom) and non-free (as in restricted in some significant fashion) is immensly helpful, even critical.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
My favorite example of this craptacular bickering was at the Atlanta Linux Showcase in 2000. I saw a FSF dude *arguing* with a Debian dude over the whole Linux-vs-GNU/Linux thing. Well, not really arguing...the Debian dude was just sorta standing there...but the FSF guy would not stop. Here's a guy that works with one of the distributions that DOES bother to say GNU/Linux...and this FSF fuckwad is getting on his case about that very issue.
Needless to say, I lost a lot of respect for the FSF.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
And yes, I speak with some degree of authority on the subject, having arranged a lecture by RMS to a former employer's developers on the subject of GPL compliance.
You could've hired me.
I'd say that omitting GIF code from GIMP is a rather important thing if you're not interested in having Unisys' lawyers call you to ask you to fill a briefcase with money for them.
If Debian redistributes stuff that they haven't got permission to redistribute, then that is a big deal.
The situation with the LDP seems rather silly; if people sent documents to the LDP, it seems rather nonsensical that those documents could possibly not be redistributable. Nonetheless, if there's a legitimate concern, then it is entirely appropriate for the documents to be "downgraded in apparent status."
This is not a disaster; if a whack of docs fall out of Debian for a while, this is not likely to lead to goats falling from the sky and other such silliness.
The shrill reaction of "Oh, we'll have to get a bunch of documents rewritten by tomorrow!" is certainly silly...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
It's a pity; I think I have a knack for creating usable documentation (and it's safer than asking me to write kernel patches, anyway); but that's one flaming hoop too many to jump through.
"Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
Personally, I wouldn't lose any sleep if the LDP documents were granted a temporary reprieve from their DFSG problems long enough to get into woody. It also won't bother me if 2/3 of them have to go into non-free. The documentation will be available to those who want it, either way.
But I see more than little irony in all the hysterical chest-thumping going on in the replies to this message from people who admit they haven't even read the DFSG, or even the GPL, and then bitch about Debian's "hysterical chest-thumping", of which I can find none. David Merrill and Colin Watson have been perfectly civil with each other and everyone else on this issue. Whatever crisis there is here is being manufactured, Katz-like, by armchair developers who don't appear to have any notion of the practical matters behind operating a free software project. Both Colin and David have this understanding, which is probably why they don't have a problem with each other.
Get caught up on the issues, first, mmmkay? The DFSG wasn't sprung on people last week. It's been around for years. So has the OSD. So has the FSF's definition of free software. People who need a slashdot story to bring the fact that free licenses permit modification to their attention don't get any sympathy from me.
What happened in this situation was clearly just misfortune. Neither the LDP documentation maintainer or the Debian package maintainer were aware of this situation until recently. Maybe they should have, but that's spilt milk. The simple truth is that Debian didn't schedule its freeze to screw the LDP. And, having watched the situation develop on the debian-legal list, I don't think the LDP will get screwed. Everybody with an actual stake in this who has spoken up wants to make this work. Some folks just used a bad license for their documentation. That's too bad. You live and you learn. You either relicense it or you don't. Debian will continue to welcome freely licensed documentation with open arms.
You know, for the life of me I can't imagine why anyone would want the freedom to modify technical documentation. It's not like software ever changes, right? I mean, none of us own any books on computers or software that say things like "Second Edition" or "Third Edition", right? And certainly such fundamental, landmark works as The Art of Computer Programming have never required the scarcest revision, let alone a rewrite to switch from MIX to MMIX...right?
Address-collecting spam robots don't know how to crack ROT13. Do you?
What problems would those be? I've done a dozen Slack 8 installs on various machines, and they all work perfectly.
IMO, the LDP license is much better than the one Debian wants to use. There is a good reason why changes to the documentation should make it back to the original authors, so they can update their documents. Documentation isn't software. When someone makes a change to software somewhere, and has to update the documentation, the corrosponding changes should be made at the LDP. I shouldn't have to worry if the "Apache Howto" at the LDP website is no longer valid, because somebody at RedHat modified the wording of a "DocumentRoot" to "DocumentStart". According to the LDP license, if someone makes a change like this and documents it (in the RH docs), the change should be forwarded onto the LDP, so they can update/add to theirs, so everyone knows whats going on. This is not the case with the proposed Debian license. People can make changes willy-nlly, and the LDP docs get all out of sync. i think this is ridiculous, and I encourage all LDP authors to not change anything. If the Debian fanatics insist on it, let them write their own docs.
Yes, someone(s) with a particular ax to grind are spending a lot of moderation points on these threads. If the mods were for Offtopic I might see at least a valid argument (if not agree with it), but the Trolls and Flamebaits suggest a concerted effort to suppress any questioning of the party line.
Sort of like John Ashcroft's performance today, eh?
sPh
Why push a major release out the door sans 2/3 of the documetation rather than wait a week or two to get the authors' okay and send everything out at once?
Barring that, send the doc out two weeks after the distribution. Two weeks from now, the enduser can update his or her documentation by opening a shell and typing "apt-get upgrade". Why is this becoming a major ideological flamewar? Am I missing something here?
"Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
The problem with this is that it doesn't distinguish between creating and distributing derived works. As is, the license requires you to send any derived works, even those created in the privacy of your own home and not distributed to anyone else, to the LDP.
-- THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -- --
Oh joy, another SlashDot poster who didn't bother to read the article. Why am I not surprised?
This change (moving non-free LDP documents to the non-free tree of Debian) is happening at *my* request, not Debian's. Regardless of your feelings on Debian's guidelines, I don't see how you can fault them for following their own guidelines.
There is no question whatsoever that the LDP documents in question violate the Debian Free Software Guidelines. And the DFSG apply to the *entire* distribution, not just software, despite the title.
David Merrill
LDP Collection Coordinator
Why in god's name would I use google's cache, when all the documentaion in question is from www.linuxdoc.org, and is going to stay there, regardless if all the Debian maintainers burn in hell or not.
The FDL ain't free either. It's quite ironic that Debian wants to convert LDP docs to FDL docs because the former doesn't meet the Debian definition of Free. Well the latter doesn't either. If it wasn't for the fact that the FDL came from GNU, Debian would reject it in a heartbeat.
According the the FSF's four freedoms, the OSI Open Source Definition, and the Debian guidelines, any license that allows immutable sections in the body of a work cannot be Free. Geez.
Of course, documentation should not follow the same rules as software. The root problem is that Debian needs separate guidelines for docs than they do for software. Both LDP and FDL (as well as "copy this at your leisure" licenses) should be allowed.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
No, but it can crap all over it if you're not careful!
Do a majority of proprietary software users actually pay attention to the licenses of the software packages they utilize?
."
... and (ii) permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely to access the Internet using the "Internet Connection Sharing" feature of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may not allow these connected COMPUTERS to use any other components of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, nor to invoke application sharing as described below. The five (5) connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections."
If they did, I'd think we'd have a lot more converts to free software.
Hmm...here are some choice excepts from the Windows EULA:
"If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is not accompanied by a new computer system or computer system component, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE PRODUCT."
"The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be installed, accessed, displayed, run, shared or used concurrently on or from different computers, including a workstation, terminal or other digital electronic device ("Devices")
"If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is Windows 98, you may additionally
"Processor Limitation - The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be used by no more than the maximum number of processors of the COMPUTER indicated at the top of this EULA." (Note: I see no number at the top of the EULA which I got from c:\windows\help\license.txt -- also this is a violation of RMS's freedom 0, the ability to use the software in any way)
"You may not rent, lease or lend the SOFTWARE PRODUCT."
"Termination. Without prejudice to any other rights, Manufacturer or MS may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts."
Here's another question, do a majority of the users of proprietary software actually agree to all of the EULA when they click "I Agree" ? What about the majority of free software users?
No modification is allowed at all. According to the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which they are now applying to ALL included works, not just software), they require that modifications are allowed.
If they drop the text of the license, then they'd have to drop every package licensed under the GPL (as the license requires including a copy of the license).
Why are you requesting it then? It seems to be a completely stupid and selfdestructive move.
I'm the maintainer of the Debian packages containing the English-language HOWTOs distributed by the Linux Documentation Project.
A few days ago, during a discussion we were having about other things, David Merrill brought it to my attention that many of the LDP documents didn't belong in our main distribution. With the evidence in front of me, it was hard for me not to agree, and, once I knew of the problem, I felt bound to do something about it.
The timing, of course, was unfortunate, coming as it did so close to the woody freeze. Yes, I should have noticed it earlier, but to be honest I've been kind of busy writing code and fixing bugs in the three months or so since I've been working on Debian's HOWTO packages. I certainly wouldn't have planned it this way; the situation now leaves me with less than three weeks to implement a bunch of code to parse the LDP database and to split the packages up, which is definitely not something I enjoy doing at the end of a release cycle, so we aren't doing this for our own amusement.
Personally, I am extremely disappointed that much of the doc-linux packages will have to become doc-linux-non-free-html and doc-linux-non-free-text. I didn't become the doc-linux maintainer with the intention of removing documentation from the standard installation! I'll be doing my best to ensure that any documents that we start being able to distribute in main are moved back into main as soon as possible, including submitting updates for point releases of woody and persuading the release manager to include them. I'll also be checking by hand as many of the documents in non-free as I can just in case they really are free. The two days mentioned in the story, incidentally, are when the relevant part of the freeze starts, not when it ends, so the notice that's been given to authors isn't quite so ridiculously short as it sounds. Any documents that get relicensed in the next month and a bit will be included in main for woody, and it wouldn't surprise me if that deadline could be allowed to slip a bit.
I find it fascinating that lots of people seem to think that Debian is somehow beating its chest, stirring trouble, or being generally obnoxious. This is simply not true. First of all, we're reacting to concerns from the LDP, and secondly all the conversations I've had with LDP people, especially David Merrill, have been very civil and friendly. (Incidentally, David, if you're reading this, I owe you a drink of your choice.)
If you'd like to see where this discussion started, try the thread about this on debian-legal. Although David's original mail to me wasn't sent to that mailing list, I think the linked article quotes everything important.
I wish David and the LDP volunteers all the best, and I dearly hope that the current situation will be temporary.
I once read a piece about the move of the Debian packages' documentation from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc . It was said that the transfer would require altering of thousands of packages. (Here, thousands is to be taken literally.) In the end I believe they came up with some kind of symlink hack to resolve the problem of altering all these packages.
;-))))
Just for the figure, I wonder exactly how much documentation we are talking about now.
(P.S.: FP w.o. whining about what licences Debian should accept!!
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
Everything was chugging along nicely, when David uncovered a concern. His conscience tugged at his mind and heart, and he reported it to you. That's fine, and in a strictly moral sense it was the right thing to do. However, look at the trouble it has caused. Do you doubt that you'll be able to resolve most of the license issues? Do you think that moving everything to non-free then back to free is going to be non-trivial or fun (you've already answered that one)? Perhaps taking a more ambiguous, more practical stance would have been the better path. The easier path. There are times where we should stand up for what we believe in, and fight to preserve our ethics and morals. There are times where we benefit so much more from keeping those ethics and morals in our sight, but taking a gentler path (yet less certain path) to the final goal. Just because you lose one battle, it doesn't mean that you will lose the war.
Having said all of that, and having called you a bunch of fools, let me say how much I admire the people who write, document, and maintain free software. Thanks for your effort helping to make Linux what it is today.
The middle mind speaks!
Maybe so, but I felt pretending I didn't know would be unethical.
David Merrill
LDP Collection Coordinator
Having it on the site is ok as long as one has a broad-band connection. I prefer to get my updates on CDs. The number of CDs in a Debian set seems to range between 3 and 7. I think that's due to whether or not source is included, but perhaps documentation will now be a part of the difference.
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Has anyone looked at the LDP recently? Its a nunch of articles by different people that mostly seems to be written in about 1997. There doesn't seem to be any kind of uniform style guidelines, people keep talking about thier favourite Linux distribution versus the LSB (which all Linux documentation should be written for) and many commonly unnecessary tasks - like getting modelines for yoru monitor (everything made in the last few years can be DCC probled) and manually entering in DNS servers for yoru modem connection (that's almost never necessary these days - every consumer ISP I know of who uses modems sends such information as part of PPP negotiations). The LDP expect new users to unecessarily rcecompile their kernel (nto even just a single module, their entire kernel) at every chance, and doesn't focus on security as much as modern documentation.
The LDP is a poor quality pile of poo. Why not include the NHFs if they meet the DFSG?
And would anyone care to clarify whether these docs meet the OSD or FSF freedoms list? I don't know anybody (including muy Debian using friends) who cares much about the DFSG compared to the OSD and FSF freedoms.
Oh God, I've been infected with the IRC virus. Damnit.
Can you get anymore fascist and ironic?
-
Of course, any product that fails to satisfy that last criterion is neither free software by the FSF definition nor open-source software by the OSI definition. However, there are plenty of packages that claim to be "free" or "open" and in fact are not. (Consider Sun's SCSL, used for Java, or SSH's read-only licenses, used for ssh.)
In short, the question I ask myself when evaluating a piece of software is "Will this seemingly free software fuck me over in the future?" If I used Debian, I'd have an easy answer to that question, without having to check each package myself.*
*In fact, I don't use Debian, because I prefer RPM and the BSD ports as package formats, but that's another story.
I think it had to happen sooner or later.
Yet, if you let it be later, you wouldn't be having this problem:
Yeah, it'll be a good deal of work for me, but that's nothing new, and David's been working his butt off contacting authors.
This sense of absolute right and wrong, black and white, has caused you trouble. But, at the end of the day, if you're happy with your decisions, efforts, and results, then nothing I or anyone else says really means a whole hell of a lot.
The middle mind speaks!
I cordially invite you to help fix the problems you see, or shut the hell up.
;-) Not much to ask for the time I've donated. Instead, you whine that it's not good enough? I mean really. I work my ass off for *this*?
It's all very well to say "[t]he LDP is a poor quality pile of poo". We have some documents that probably deserve that fragrant description. But we also publish works good enough for O'Reilly to publish them.
My time spent in the service of the LDP is time spent for *you*, all the Linux users. Our authors don't get paid for their work, and neither does the staff. All we expect is to feel good about what we've accomplished at the end of the day, get an occasional thanks, and maybe the odd beer after a LUG meeting.
The NHF's are often very good, and in many cases better for the newbie user, their audience. The LDP is oriented more toward the system administrator and power user. That's not because we decided to be that, but because that's who is writing. I applaud their work. It isn't a competition.
Then again, there are subjects covered on the LDP that would never make it into a NHF.
Want more end-user docs? Fine, send them in. We'll publish them.
David Merrill
LDP Collection Coordinator
Because.. from RMS point of view, Linux is a kernel, and it uses a lot of GNU. Without GNU, linux wouldn't be what it is. That's why.
.but I see his point.
He does not insist on calling the *kernel* GNU/Linux. He said the whole operating system, because it's got so much of the GNU system in it, should be GNU/Linux.
I disagree.
I cordially invite you to help fix the problems you see, or shut the hell up.
FYI, I'm thinking of taking over the X, XTerm, XDCMP and font deuglification howtos, depending on how easy Docbook is to learn (I'm currently dealing with Latex, and from all indications DocBook is favourably less hellish, so it looks like a goer).
However, I reject the notion that just because something is made avaliable for free all criticism is invalid, especially constructive cricism like the above. Bug reports and suggestions for improvement are contributions. Furthermore that authors of many open source projects compare themselves favourably to proprietary ones, shouldn't other people be able to do the same and draw their own conclusions? Thanksyou for your contribution, but I'll make my own mind up, thank you very much.
The NHF's are often very good, and in many cases better for the newbie user, their audience. The LDP is oriented more toward the system administrator and power user.
The NHF also seems to have more of a security focus than the LSB, and is centainly more up to date. In that sense it appears much more applicable to administrators than the LDP.
Regardless, thankyou for your thoughtful and polite response
I actually read the GPL before I started using Linux regularly (maybe even before I installed it at all; this was ages ago) -- I think it was when I was trying an early version of Cygwin out, and the installer popped the GPL up. I normally clicked right through the license agreements, but I read this one, because the first few lines were totally different from any license I'd seen before.
I remember being extremely amused at the cleverness of the GPL. I still am, in fact. Good hack, that.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
There have been several versions of LDP. Some comply with DFSG but some don't.
A typical copyright might say something like this: "This document may only be distributed subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the LDP License." But the "LDP License" is linked to the LDP Manifesto which does not allow modification.
It's the versions that ban modification outright that are the problem.
DFSG has no problem with giving credit to authors.
By now I hope that you realise that I consider the entire point to be moot (the documentation licences will be changed or the documents in question will be moved), but am enjoying the civil discourse, and the chance to play Devil's Advocate. Thank you, and good luck on resolving the difficulties.
The middle mind speaks!