* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011202 02:53]: > > but do we want to deticate space and bandwidth to non-free licensing, > > or does the cabal of publishing ideas limit us to thinking of > > documentation as Free? > I'm sorry, I don't understand this part.
Theres been business models made out of documentation and writings not being Free, however the software around it being so. (O'Reilly, for instance) Until recently, the FDL and sorts havent overly challenged publishers to really give out any documentation electronically for free, with good reason that it makes people money. Some Writers now want to be able to write good documentation for something but have the documentation be Free in any form. This freaks out publishers, because they might not get all the possible revenue on a item, but it helps Users because they should expect better access to Good Documentation, thus hopefully freeing up thinking minds from helping users due to Bad Documentation. But thats probally not totally germane to this discussion. In any case, the people who worry about money (publishers) are worried about Free Documentation. Perhaps Debian, as a project, can help by making sure that the documentation isn't restricted horribly. By having documentation that cant be maintained in the future is somewhat worthless 'eventually' to Users, and with the Maintainers and Upstream with hands tied, having to reproduce documentation thats Free to stay Current is also a waste of time. So, the idea is that you either have non-free docs that dont go electronic, or you have Free docs that are maintainable and highly available with people buying the book because they want to either support the author or have a nice bound typeset version. -- Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ringworld.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] So I ran up to him, and the exchange went something like this: Me: Oh my god! You're Larry Niven! Him: Oh my god! You're Wil Wheaton! -Wil Wheaton, in a Slashdot interview
