Subject: Re: Yggdrasil Pressure on the LDP
From: [email-masked] (Matt Welsh)
To: Linux Documentation Project writers <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 19:31:04 EDT

David Hinds <[email-masked]> writes:
> >From the tone of Matt's message, it seems that there is some history
> here that some of us are not aware of.  I'm curious about what exactly
> Yggdrasil finds to be problematic about any existing LDP copyright
> restrictions, and why this has become an issue.

I apologize; I should have pointed out the historical events which have
led to this situation. Adam Richter and RMS have been "teaming up"
against the LDP (specifically, those of us with manuals under the LDP 
license---this does not include most of the HOWTOs) trying to urge
us to change our copyright, so that anyone can modify the works without
our prior permission.

This argument has volleyed every few months, in which Adam and/or RMS
lectures me about the importance of "free" documentation, and I
respond back, in kind, explaining (calmly) the reasons behind our
wanting the no-modification requirement. Usually, after that, it gets
dropped for a month or two.

At one point, RMS had threatened (I found out about this indirectly)
to start a "rival" Linux Doc Project to write new manuals that
were free, in the GNU sense. I never promised to change the copyright
license, but I did promise to discuss it with the other LDP authors.

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---
I find it not unlikely that a Linux CD-ROM vendor would modify
a manual to cover only the features on a single CD-ROM, making
it appear as though the author somehow endorsed or supported the
product in question. 

> I'm not a big fan of the FSF and the GNU copyright scheme, and I
> haven't used it on any of my own work.  It does seem to provide enough
> protection for the sorts of problems that Matt raises, however.  It
> does say that any modified files have to carry a "prominent notice" of
> changes, along with the dates of changes.  

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. 

Anyway, this isn't the point. I may still release the I&GS under the
GPL; I had been considering it for a long time, and have pretty much
decided upon it (when I find the time to make the necessary changes).
The problem is that I don't believe that we should allow Yggdrasil,
or anyone else, to dictate to us the copyright used on our works
by holding donations over our heads. That, to me, represents the utmost
in disrespect, and I believe that we (the LDP) deserve to be treated 
like professionals.

You may of course do what you will with your copyrights. I have no
"control" or "power" over anybody in the LDP and won't attempt to
exert anything of the sort---I hope that everyone knows that. I
also don't intend to drag you into any silly dispute that I may
have with Adam Richter or RMS. My own personal point of view is
that Adam should pay a bit more attention to the ways in which he
depends upon our work before he tries to push us around. I'm not
going to impose my views upon anyone else. We are all individuals,
and we are all capable of making our own good decisions.

This is my own problem with Adam and RMS, and I plan to deal with
it on a personal level.

I don't have the time or interest to deal with this issue much further;
it's bullshit. Vendors should support and work with the volunteers that 
made Linux what it is, instead of pressuring them into changing their
copyrights or anything else. I'm not going to cooperate with vendors
who believe that it is their position to pressure the volunteers;
as I said, if I change the copyright on the I&GS, it won't be to
make Adam Richter or RMS happy.

mdw