[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
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.
>In this case, distribution could mean electronic distribution - which means
>the LDP wouldn't have the right to post a derived work without the author's
>permission. Of course, since the LDP doesn't have a consistent license,
>there's no telling which pieces of the LDP could, or couldn't, be updated -
>unless you want to examine each piece separately. Some of the more vocal
>people on this list have the position that a consistent license would make
>it more difficult to work with the LDP.
>The fact this topic of conversation is even brought up makes me think
>differently. After all, if the overall goal of the LDP is to provide
>high-quality, free information, then the ability to update and maintain
>content easily, and without fear of legal action, is of utmost importance.
>The LDP needs to put rules in place to ensure this happens. If authors don't
>want to play by whatever rules the LDP comes up with, then they should post
>their material elsewhere.
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com