Normally the modification should be sent to the maintainer that should
apply the modification to the official version. If someone decide to
fork and change the document you should not care, because it's not your
document anymore.

For example if you proceed with, git you will receive the patches as per
tradition, or following the rules that you can set.

Actually, I don't think it's a big deal.

On 02/09/21 20:26, Steve Litt 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.
>
> Because of https://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html
> , I think the GFDL would be a bad choice.
>
> I've been thinking of this for weeks now, and I'm stumped. What license
> should we apply in order for this to be free and open information, and
> yet to the degree possible, limit contamination by the uninformed or
> the malicious?
>
> Thanks,
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> Spring 2021 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful
> Technologist http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng