"Matthew C. Weigel" wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Greg London wrote:
> > If OSI has a commitment to furthering open source
> > software, then a documentation license would greatly
> > advance open soure. What good is software if you don't
> > know how to use it?
> 
> You've got the source, why don't you know how to use it?  ;-)

a dismissive statement, hiding behind backhanded humor.

I run a perl training, part time, where I work.
Everyone in my class wants to learn perl.
why did they bother coming to me when 
they could just read the source code and
figure it out for themselves?

Because not everyone spends every waking moment
of their life eating and breathing code.
They want to use it to get their job done,
but they want to spend time with their
husbands and kids when they get home.


> > I would like to write a "Teach Yourself Perl" kind of document and
> > license it so that it is freely copiable and freely distributable.
> > But I don't want people to modify my document and redistribute it
> 
> How would that be open source, if people can't modify it?  More
> specifically, why would the OSI or the FSF care about it, if it's
> contrary to their goals?

I find it interesting, almost like I've stepped
into a world of group-self-deception, bordering 
on hypocricy, that GPL <<as a document>> is licensed
as "copy/distribute/no-modify". But every response
(so far at least) to a request for a license that
codifies "copy/distribute/no-modify" has dismissed
the request.

The responses so far regarding a copy/distribute/no-modify 
license have said that such a license would:

1) not be open source
2) not further OSI's commitment to open-source
3) have no value to the rest of the world
4) would condemn it's document to instant out-of-dateness.

Yet, the GPL license, as a document itself, 
licensed as "copy/distribute/no-modify", is:

A) considered the granddaddy of all open-source movements
B) at teh top of OSI's list of open source licenses
C) widely by programmers to license their software
D) up-to-date, and was even released with a new version number

You're only fooling yourselves if you assert 1-4,
since I've seen the evidence to the contrary in A-D.

What I'm hearing is that open-source MUST REQUIRE a 
	"copy/distribute/modify" 
license, except for : 
	the license >> that licenses >> the license. 
At which point, you need to switch to a 
	"copy/distribute/no-modify" 
license, just for that little part.

And then kid yourselves that you didn't pull a fast-one.

So, I'm calling you on your conjuring trick.
You wave your hands and say "yeah, but that part's different".
You cast a spell that say "open source must be able to modify
its text, but an exception to the rule is acceptable for our 
own licenses."

And I'm telling you that Open-Source can embrace both.

A General Public License (GPL) that says 
	"copy/distribute/modify"
and a General Document License (GDL) that says 
	"copy/distribute/no-modify".

I'm telling you that Open-Source ALREADY embraces both,
since GPL is licensed under GDL. It's not a big deal.
It's already there. I'm just asking that it (GDL) be made
a separate license (rather than rolled into the GPL)
so that I can use the GDL in _my_ document.

It's good enough for GPL to use the GDL, so it's good 
enough for me. 

And you're all running around like I'm going to bring
fire and brimstone down from out of the sky.
cats and dogs living together...   total chaos...

relax people, it'll be OK. It already **IS** OK.

Greg
"Put the license down, and slowly move away from the keyboard!"



