Subject: Yggdrasil
From: [email-masked] (Matt Welsh)
To: Linux Documentation Project writers <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 21:44:25 EDT

Michael,

I'm surprised that you think that it's "fine" for Yggdrasil to place
conditions on the LDP copyright license. Don't you see an inherent 
conflict of interest if the group which is providing donations for 
our works also places conditions under which they may be obtained?

Yggdrasil is going to make money off of the LDP works either way. I 
don't think it makes any sense for them to refuse to support us based 
on how we wish to conduct ourselves and license our works.

This would be a completely separate matter if Yggdrasil were NOT
selling the Linux Bible for profit. If there were another "neutral"
group (say, the FSF---any non-profit would do) offering us money 
to produce free documentation, that's understandable and we could
choose to accept or decline the support. (For example, the LI
Grant Fund would only generally support software development
that's covered under the GPL, yes?)

The difference is that Yggdrasil isn't choosing to NOT PRINT our works 
based on the fact that they're not free---so they can't claim to have 
a moral problem with our license. They're quite happy to make money off 
of us whether the docs are "free" or not.

I think it's inherently bad for vendors to work "against" the volunteers
like this. They should support us because they make profit from our 
works, not because of some philosophical or political position that 
we're supposed to have. They should support us because we support them,
no matter what the copyright says. Because they are a COMPANY, not
a non-profit or a philantropic organization. They are making profit
from our works regardless. 

They should respect the rights of the volunteers and the developers to 
choose the license which works best for them---because the copyright is 
there, first and foremost, to protect the author. I can't stress enough
how important this is. 

If Yggdrasil's support is going to be on the condition that I change a
license to their liking, then I decline the support, and will no
longer condone or support their profit-making venture in return. I'd
rather be supported by vendors who realize our importance to their
business and who respect us enough to make our own decisions. I would
feel quite differently about the situtation if a non-profit group,
such as the FSF, were extending donations. But this is a company,
and they are making direct profits from our efforts. Should we also
allow them to control our copyright, which we have designed to protect
us? 

mdw