On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 03:03 -0500, Thomas Jones wrote: > 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. I think the difference is that the templates are vetted for clarity in authoring and following the LDP process. This is a vetting that the writers and editors of LDP can do themselves. It does not sound as if those templates are vetted for legal anything. They probably followed the formula laid out in the GFDL for compliance. It's not that hard, I'm pretty sure I know what we need to do ... okay, well, that's a lie, it's obscure to me what to do, but I'm confident we can figure this out. > 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... I'm just guessing here, but I reckon the FSF would not agree that the CC or incomplete LDP license is equivalent in stature to the GFDL. The fact that they offer three different licenses shows to me a lack of confidence in any one, single license. > 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 think we are mixing up fruit here (to mix up metaphors). It sounds as if the templates conform only to LDP standard of layout and associated licensing. They happen to be covered by the GFDL, but by their own rules, they could change the Author Guide to use the CC or the new LDP license and _still_be_in_conformance_. Regardless, I think the point is no longer moot. Our docs and procedures are well derived from the giants who have stood here before. The major differences are in the stylesheets. We are already using the LDP format, in general. <snip from another email> > If you know of some loophole because of the manifesto; you may want > to forward that to ESR or another representative of FSF. I am sure > they'd be interested to know of your findings. This one seems to have been well-beaten by Debian. AIUI, docs that use the GFDL and have Invariant Sections or other immutable-by-license content are considered non-free by Debian. The discussions were hot in the middle of 2003 and early in 2004 on debian-legal. I'm only reading about them now. I'm sure the FSF has heard all about it. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 Red Hat SELinux Guide http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
