Aaron Turner wrote:
> So what happens when you become bored with maintaining the document and it
> becomes grossly out of date, no longer useful, and even worse leads people
> down the wrong path?
Well, if the author doesn't want to re-release it under a license that
allows for it to be modified and updated by others, then it gets dropped
into the "unmaintained" catagory and forgotten, and, hopefully
replaced. I think that most people, if they get tired of maintaining
something that is still useful, are more than likely going to be willing
to re-release it this way.
> This has happend with a number of the LDP documents
> where the maintainer wasn't maintaining their documents and they end up
> creating more problems than good. Often out of date/incorrect
> documentation is worse than no documentation at all.
True. "Freely modifiable" is very useful for certain types of
documents.
> > I would, on the other hand, write a user
> > manual under a license that allowed for it to be freely modified. I
>
> Now I'm really confused. :-) How is a (short?) paper different from a
> manual? What if an organization would like to modify your paper to make
> it more applicable for internal-only purposes- ie not publicly
> redistribute the changes?
Hm. I should have stated this more clearly. If I wrote a paper akin to
"The Cathedral and the Bazaar", a research/analysis paper that largely
stated my own ideas and opinions about something, I would not release
that under a license that allowed others to modify it. On the other
hand, if I wrote documentation for a piece of software (such as "a new
user's guide to Mutt), I would allow it to be freely modified. They're
two different types of document, really.
> I think the real problem I have with non-modifiable (content)
> documentation for open source software is that the documentation is ALWAYS
> behind the code. Having a semi-open development model (email suggestions)
> is going to have a lot of documents which continue to be out of date.
Perhaps we could strongly encourage people to release software
documentation under a license that allows for it to be freely modified.
I'm still not 100% convinced that it should be required, however. Some
folks do like to maintain control over the content of what is their
work, and I think that any documentation, whether it can be modified or
not, is better than no documentation at all. At very least, if it
becomes obsolete, it will be available as an information resource for
anyone who wants to write a replacement.
For personal research papers, etc., however, I think that authors should
be allowed to include them in the OSWG documentation set with a "no
modifications" restriction.
[snip]
> Now, just a few weeks ago he changed the license (OpenContent) to allow
> anyone to contribute to the document because he found he didn't have the
> time to properly maintain it like he had planned.
And I think that the majority of authors out there, when they got tired
of maintaining their work, would be willing to do the same. Some won't,
but that's something we'll have to deal with.
Ideally, most people will be willing to do docs under a license that
allows for modifications from the start. Most successful open-source
coding projects do, however, have a "benevolent dictator" who has the
final say on whether proposed patches are added or not. Each
documentation project should probably have the same sort of thing...an
"executive editor" of sorts. When a "benevolent dictator" steps down,
someone else is free to take his/her place. When an "executive editor"
steps down, it would be ideal if someone else could step in in the same
way. Releasing docs under a license that allows for free modifications
would allow for this.
On the other hand, a license that allows for modifications doesn't
guarantee that the document will continue to be updated when the
original author/editor abandons it. No matter what we do, some stuff
will get old and dusty and obsolete.
> I don't see why having a bias towards a certain license but allowing any
> license that meets certain criteria would alienate people. Maybe I'm a
> bit thicker skinned than most or something.
Licenses are a very sensitive issue for a lot of people in this
community, and that's okay. In fact, it's a really good thing, because
it keeps us all honest :)
> Either way, I'm glad that you're very strong on the reformatting and
> redistribution requirements. We at the LinuxKB are always looking for
> external documentation sources that allow us to include their content
> within our directory.
Well...the OSWG is all about improving the quality and quantity of
open-source/open-content documentation, and I think that the more it
gets picked up and disseminated, the better.
- deb
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
