Thu, 2 Sep 2021 21:50:10 +0200 - tito <farmatito@???>:

> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 14:26:52 -0400
> Steve Litt <slitt@???> 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.



> 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