research on using the GFDL

Rahul Sundaram sundaram at redhat.com
Thu May 5 07:22:34 UTC 2005


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

>
>
> 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.


>
> 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




More information about the docs mailing list