Hi
But that matters not. The original point was that the documents currently being developed in the LDP project are highly scrutenized(spelling?) for legal requirements. Thus my point that it may be a good idea to utilize currently existing resources.
I am the review coordinator for LDP currently and I am pretty sure that these documents are NOT scrutenised at all legally and hence it is a bad idea to follow it. For document authoring and review processes I would completely agree with you
From the LDP website:
To be accepted into The Linux Documentation Project the document has to be licensed according to either GFDL, Creating Commons or TLDP copyright, for more information please look at the licensing section <http://tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/html/doc-licensing.html> of the Author Guide.
From section 6.2(licensing section <http://tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/html/doc-licensing.html>) of LDP Author Guide:
We recommend using the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html>, one of the Creative Commons Licenses <http://www.creativecommons.org/license>, or the LDP license (currently under review).
The authors guide only suggests these licenses and does not require them. The licensing requirement is specified by the LDP manifesto http://tldp.org/manifesto.html which states that you can create custom licenses and also does not mandate modifiability of documents. The LDP license was also edited in place previously.
All I know is they have representatives such as ESR reviewing the legal aspects of the document structures being derived from the guide.
I am not sure why you believe ESR is involved with the authors guide at all
regards Rahul
--
fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
