On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 07:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Karsten Wade wrote: > > > OTOH, Spot (and others) have reminded me that the differences between > > distros outweigh the similarities. > > That is not a problem for some of the documentation like basic server > side sys administration guides. We'd still need a full analysis to see if it was worth it. It could be that 20% or 50% or 80% of the content could be shared. > > Maybe ... maybe we need to coordinate with other distros to put a common > > front-end on TLDP to allow us all to update it, and use it as a common > > docbase? We can use any content that is GPL, afaik, although it's not > > our preferred license for documentation. The majority of TLDP is still > > GPL, right? > > GPL? You mean GNU FDL. TLDP licensing is a bit of mess but I would guess > that the important docs are under GNU FDL which I believe is > incompatible with Open Publication License. :( Bummer ... http://www.tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/html/doc-licensing.html Because authors retain copyright and choose their own license, there isn't going to be a way that e.g. LDP could multi-license content. So that pretty much lets us out of the running. FWIW, I'm glad. I don't like the GNU FDL. It's a PITA to administrate, I believe the lawyers who tell me it doesn't give enough protection, and it definitely seems contradictory to the GPL. It's too bad the CC BY-SA doesn't include warranty protection ... - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
