I guess my problem is that I don't ever want to be in the position where
the "best thing to do" is pull the document. There's such a gap in the
existing documentation that it would really really suck to have to pull
something just because there's one line that needs to be changed so that
it works again. A perfect example of this is some docs I wrote for
internal use that says how and what order to compile about 20 Perl
modules, mod_perl, php3, OpenSSL, mod_ssl, and Apache.
Sometime between mod_ssl-2.2.8 and 2.4.6 the method for configuring it
changed. Problem is that this 10 page document was worthless because of
this *one* line (what's the point of a SSL server if you can't compile the
ssl module?).
And as stupid as it sounds you always have the "What if you get hit by a
bus?" senerio. You get a really prolific writer who wants to maintain
control, but has every intention to open up the license when he/she no
longer can maintain it, but then has a heart attack or gets hit by a bus,
and all you can do is say, "Well that sucks." and pull it three months
later when it no longer applies/works.
I understand that a lot of people are willing to take that risk, and I
suppose that's their choice. But IMHO the OSWG should look at this sort
of thing and think what is best for the community (specifically the
end-user whom you're trying to help) and try to pursuade authors to act
accordingly. The problem with choices, with regards to licenses, is that
few people really realize the implication of their choices; so it's all
too easy to make the wrong choice.
--
Aaron Turner, Core Developer http://vodka.linuxkb.org/~aturner/
Linux Knowledge Base Organization http://linuxkb.org/
Because world domination requires quality open documentation.
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 24 Oct, Aaron Turner wrote:
>
> > So what happens when you become bored with maintaining the document and it
> > becomes grossly out of date, no longer useful, and even worse leads people
> > down the wrong path? This has happend with a number of the LDP documents
> > where the maintainer wasn't maintaining their documents and they end up
> > creating more problems than good. Often out of date/incorrect
> > documentation is worse than no documentation at all.
>
> Encourage feedback to that effect from the community.
>
> which triggers:
>
> Contact the author.
> If the author cannot be contacted:
> if the document allows for derivative works (ie someone
> else can take it over)
> seek a new maintainer
> if you can't find a new maintainer:
> pull the document.
> else
> pull the document.
