Subject: RE: LDP and FSF and coprights
From: [email-masked] (Matt Welsh)
To: Linux Documentation Project writers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:48:37 EDT

Al Longyear <[email-masked]> writes:
> It strikes me that you are concerned that companies like Yggdrasil will 
> change your work and remove sections which they find commercially 
> undesirable. That they would further print the documentation in such as 
> manner as to have it appear that the documentation was written for their 
> specific package only.

I do not disagree with RMS, Adam, or anybody else that having the ability
to modify the docs with the software (and to fit the software) is good.
I want people to be able to do that, but I'm worried that the editorial
choices made by some people modifying the book might not be good ones.
I wanted to retain the ability to be the "editor" of dericed works.

> Then, if the documentation is modeled after the GPL, and if the GPL is 
> designed to permit the modification, then it follows that the documentation 
> must permit the modification.

I agree with this totally. Unfortunately it's not so cut and dry with
editorial content---technically I have no problems with the book being
changed. 

At any rate, I've decided now to modify the license on the I&GS---when
I get the time to do so! I will leave an "Author's Notes" section at
the front and make certain sections non-modifiable without my permission.
This will only cover a few sections in the introductory section of the
book---little, if any, technical content will be restricted. 

I hope that this will work out for this book. 

mdw