On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 10:33:31AM +0200, al3xu5 wrote:
> 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.
>
>

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@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng