Re: cvs: phpweb / copyright.php license.html style.css /include layout.inc

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 11:00:01PM +0200, eschmid+sic@s.netic.de wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 01:28:54PM -0700, Jim Winstead wrote: > > good for them. > > Normally publisher pay the authors and print their names on the front > page. good for them. i don't see the relevance. this isn't a normal author/publisher relationship. > > > Does any from the authors of the PHP manual get paid by iUniverse? > > > > no. as one of the authors, do i care? not at all > > My motivation goes down to NULL. If I'm a publisher (which happens soon) I > haven't to share the incomings with the authors. welcome to the world of open source development. > > do any of the authors of php itself get paid every time that red > > hat or suse or caldera or anyone else sells a cd with php on it? no. > > as one of the authors, do i care? not at all. > > PHP is (at least PHP 3) Open Source Software and under the GPL. The PHP > manual is a different thing. It is not software. i do not agree that it is quite so different. > > > The GPL was choosen by accident. It have been discussed already, that we > > > should switch ASAP to another more appropriate license. > > > > interesting application of "asap". i think i was the one who first > > raised the issue a couple of years ago. > > And why haven't you changed them? Use the license for manuals from the > FSF or ask RMS which one is more appropriate. i didn't pursue changing the license because, while i thought it would be nice to have a license that some publishers were more comfortable with, i didn't find it compelling enough to waste time tracking down people who had contributed to the manual so they could approve a new license. you're the one who said we should switch "asap". i don't see the pressure for change that you apparently do. and what makes you think i care what rms thinks is the most appropriate license? his goals are quite different from mine. i happen to think the fsf's documentation license is pretty lame. > > why did i raise it? so *more* publishers would print the manual, > > and hopefully contribute back to making the freely-available manual > > better, rather than paying yet another author to write the same > > basic material. (but not so that the contribution would become a > > requirement.) > > You are too late, April the First is over. huh? jim