[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revisi
>> Jeff Koch wrote:
>> >From the LDP Manifesto page:
>> >"Any translation or derived work must be approved by the
>> author in writing
>> >before distribution."
David Lawyer wrote: (a little too hastily)
>> This has been taken out of context. The previous paragraph
>> states: "Here
>> is a ``boilerplate license'' you *may* apply to your work."
>> Thus it only
>> applies to authors who have copied it into their work. Using grep, I
>> can't find a single HOWTO that has used it (as of a few months ago).
>> Thus it is not LDP policy nor does it apply to any HOWTOs
>> that I have on
>> my PC and your comments below are based on a false premise.
>My comments below are not based on a false premise. I used the option above
>to illustrate how the current licensing practices promote confusion. Just
>because people haven't invoked the above option yet doesn't mean that it's
>not available and potentially harmful to the overall goals of the LDP. My
>overall point was, that without enforcing a consistent license, individual
>pieces of the LDP may or may not be free, updatable, whatever.
Thanks for the clarification. I was too hasty when I wrote "false
premise" and would like to retract it. I've recently found out that the
"Linux Installation and Getting Started Guide" did use this "boilerplate"
license and like you say, it runs contrary to the overall goals of the
LDP. That's why I'm asking for revision of it (or just deleting it).
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org