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