On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 10:33:31AM +0200, al3xu5 wrote: > Thu, 2 Sep 2021 21:50:10 +0200 - tito <farmat...@tiscali.it>: > > > On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 14:26:52 -0400 > > Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > A discussion on this list about a month ago spawned several documents > > > about programming best practices, which I have been calling the "DNG > > > Software Guide", even though it's absolutely not sponsored or even > > > approved by Devuan. > > > > > > With the latest version at > > > http://troubleshooters.com/linux/presentations/golug_software_guide_20210901.tgz > > > , it's mature enough to get a license and Git distribution. This email > > > is about the license. > > > > > > If this were software, I'd probably vote for an extremely permissive > > > license like the license of Expat ( > > > https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat ). However, this is > > > documentation, and I'm a little afraid that people with insufficient > > > knowledge, or with political agendas, will water it down with bullshit. > > > Only skilled people can modify source code, but any fool can modify > > > documentation. > > [...] > > Agree. > >
Isn't there already a creative commons license like this? -- hendrik > > > Hi, > > > > This are the Ten Commandments of software writing, have you ever heard > > of somebody who wants to change the Ten Commandments? > > > > Jokes aside there is no license whatsoever that will save your work > > from idiots because there are so many and because they will in due time > > find various and subtle ways to subvert and corrupt your work that you > > cannot even imagine now. > > > > The only helpful license is the one that forbids any modification, > > or subordinately permits modifications only under your supervision > > or under the supervision of a person appointed by you > > (unless by error you appoint one of the aforementioned idiots. That > > would be a pity!). > > > Indeed. > > I think it can be treated as the reference documentation that accompanies > a software. Which is modified along with the software releases. > > Or like the publication of an article or a book or a technical text. Which > the author can later readjust or modify by publishing a later revision. > > And, in that specific case of the "DNG Software Guide", it is a text that > contains personal views, knowledge and experiences of the author(s). > > > So, we want to make the "DNG Software Guide" available (and any subsequent > revisions modified by the same author(s)), also allowing its > redistribution, but without the content being altered by others. > > Basically, it seems to me that a verbatim license is needed. > For example: > > https://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/html_node/Verbatim-Copying-License.html > > > But nothing prevents us from using a different verbatim license, perhaps > more articulated and specific ... > > Maybe even a specially created verbatim license! > > I suggest sometihing like: > > ~~~ > > DNG Verbatim Libre License > Version 1.0, 1 September 2021 > > Copyright 2021 DNG > <https://www.devuan.org> > > This License document is released under the following terms and conditions > of the DNG Verbatim Libre License itself. > > TERMS AND CONDITIONS > > Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire work are permitted > worldwide except for commercial purposes, without royalty, in any medium, > ensuring content source full availability and exclusive use of completely > open and patent-free formats when using any digital medium, provided this > notice is preserved. Any strictly personal use is not subject to any > limitation. > > ADDENDUM > > To apply this License to your works, insert a verbatim copy of the License > itself with it, and also add to it the following copyright and license > notices: > > Copyright <year> <name of author> > Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire work is permitted under > the terms and conditions of the DNG Verbatim Libre License License, > Version 1.0. > > End of DNG Verbatim Libre License text. > > ~~~ > > > If this is a (good) idea that can be pursued, I think it would be > interesting and important to discuss it, establish the exact wording of > the license (name, copyright holder, clauses etc.) ... and use it in the > case in question (and in all other cases where a verbatim license is > needed)! > > > > > > I understand that this form of licensing is not propitious to encourage > > progress. > > > > OTOH often I ask myself: Progress? what progress? > > Exactly: progress is not good in itself... > > > > This are my pessimistic 2 cents. > > Pessimistic? I would say realistic. > > > Regards > > > > > > al3xu5 > > -- > Say NO to copyright, patents, trademarks and industrial design > restrictions! > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > Public GPG/PGP key: 8FC2 3121 2803 86E9 F7D8 B624 DA50 835B 2624 A36B > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
