Subject: Re: LDP and FSF and copyrights
From: [email-masked] (Matt Welsh)
To: Linux Documentation Project writers <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 11:50:02 EDT

[Forwarded from RMS. --mdw]

--- Forwarded mail from Richard Stallman <[email-masked]>

>From [email-masked]  Sun Jul 23 01:42:56 1995
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 01:42:48 -0400
From: Richard Stallman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LDP and FSF and copyrights
Status: O

[Please forward this to ldp-l]

    The changes that they want to make go beyond technical ones. They want
    to remove all references to their "competetors" (other vendors),
    including those I make in the acknowledgements.

I think it would be appropriate to label the acknowledgements as a
section for which deletions are not allowed.  The acknowledgements are
not part of the subject matter of the book; they are your personal
feelings about writing it.

If a copy of the book is specialized to one particular version, it
would make sense to delete the material about how to install other
versions.  Why do you feel it is vitally important to mention them?

    For example, they also want to remove all references to downloading 
    Linux software off the Internet, instead of purchasing their CD-ROM
    subscription program.

With the internet growing so fast, I don't think there is much danger
that very many users won't have access to this information.  I think
you're worrying hard about a minor problem.  But if you really want to
prevent this, I think one short paragraph, mentioning this as a sleazy
thing to do, would suffice.

The list of distribution sites, itself, should not be in a section
that can't be changed.  It is important to be able to edit the list.
For example, sites may stop operating.  But there are other reasons.

Suppose the FSF were to use the book.  Suppose that one of the sites
listed started distributing a GNU/Linux system packaged with software
such as Netscape, which individuals are allowed to FTP but is not free
software.  We would not want to have anything to do with helping users
find that site.  We would be in a very bad bind if we could not drop
mention of the site.

    In addition, they want to remove my advice to
    "not reinstall with every new release of a Linux CD-ROM"

Don't worry about it.  Users don't need you to tell them this.  They
are used to ignoring advice, even if it comes from you, and especially
if it sounds like it comes from salesmen.

They will judge for themselves how much benefit they gain from
upgrading, and how much trouble it takes, and then do what suits them.

    That's true. But I still think that it would be difficult to 
    encapsulate all of my views in a single portion of the book---and,
    of course, would anybody bother to read such a section? 

Readers' eyes are drawn to sections that express personal views about
controversial issues.  Accusations of sleaze are fun to read.  By
putting your most important personal opinions into a section of their
own, you will call attention to them.

But putting all your opinions about all issues into these sections is
clutching too hard.  Readers aren't so interested in anyone's opinions
about minor issues.

So put the most important issues (whichever they are) into these
special sections; for the lesser issues, don't worry so much about
them.

If you look at the Emacs manual, you'll see that plenty of my opinions
are expressed in sections that people are free to change.  Only a few
vital issues--things like why software should be free--are in sections
that cannot be changed.  If my other opinions were changed, I would be
peeved.  But how important is that?

There are certain things readers tend to skip--for example, legal
terms and acknowledgements.  They will skim over these things no
matter where they appear; you can't prevent this.  So you won't lose
anything by putting them in identified separate sections.

Don't put them in the same section as the important opinions, though.
You can have more than one section of personal material.  Perhaps it
makes sense to have three--one for exciting things (controversy), one
for dull things (acknowledgements), and one for dull and difficult
things (legal matters).

--- End of forwarded message from Richard Stallman <[email-masked]>