From: "Faustus von Goethe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >From: "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >My first personal opinion is that a closed-rights copyrighted FAQ for an
> >Open developent project is an oxymoron.
>
> Which precedent would you like to discuss first?
I have no problem with someone copyrighting a FAQ. I have a problem with a
"closed rights" FAQ that can't be distributed.
Here's a link for the GNOME FAQ:
http://www.linux.org.uk/~telsa/GDP/gnome-faq/meta.html
It's released using the GPL.
Here's the statement from the GNU Emacs FAQ:
"The FAQ may be copied and redistributed under these conditions, except that
the FAQ may not be embedded in a larger literary work unless that work
itself allows free copying and redistribution."
You find the same pattern repeated throughout the Open Source community.
The FAQ's are copyrighted, and freely redistributable (though there are
sometimes restrictions against commercial distribution).
The point of an FAQ is to distribute information as far and as wide as
possible. Having a restricted right FAQ means that the primary objective of
the FAQ will not be met. Therefore, increasing the number of links and
references to the closed rights FAQ degrades the overall value of the Open
Gaming network and increases the need for someone to write an open rights
FAQ to use in its place. It is on the (long) list of things to do, and
creating an open-rights FAQ has nothing to do with the current content of
the closed rights FAQ (though it is riddled with errors, mistatements, and
editorial comments that don't belong in an FAQ) or my personal opinion of
the author.
Ryan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
