Rahul Sundaram wrote:
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
I am not sure what you mean here. Isn't document authoring using the templates the topic at hand? So new documents are not authored according to the templates?
I was just trying to save everyone alot of legal leg-work and research by utilizing pre-existing accepted templates.
Yes, I did notice that it was a recommendation. However, as noted before; LDP states that "The Linux Documentation Project the document has to be licensed according to either GFDL" etc..etc...
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.
So you are saying that the staple linux documentation entity --- LDP ---- is improperly recommending use of the GFDL for documentation authored from their guides templates? If the guides templates do not conform then why do they recommend utilization of the GFDL license? If the templates do conform, which it should given they are recommending utilization of the GFDL; then why not use the templates?
I never meant ESR authored the guides templates, simply that himself and/or others from FSF surely reviewed the derivative documentation of the guide as being in conformance.
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
Are you saying that they haven't? I was a former adminstrator of linux-howtos before the LDP was formed, and have seen the many legal issues come to light since the LDP was formed. Even when I administered the howtos, legality was an issue. I don't have first-hand knowledge but can only assume that they have done so.
Cheers, Thomas
--
fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
