research on using the GFDL

[Thomas Jones]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> 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

I am not sure what you mean here. Isn't document authoring using the 
templates the topic at hand? So new documents are not authored according 
to the templates?

I was just trying to save everyone alot of legal leg-work and research 
by utilizing pre-existing accepted templates.

>>
>>
>> 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.
>
Yes, I did notice that it was a recommendation. However, as noted 
before; LDP states that "The Linux Documentation Project the document 
has to be licensed according to either GFDL" etc..etc...

So you are saying that the staple linux documentation entity --- LDP 
---- is improperly recommending use of the GFDL for documentation 
authored from their guides templates? If the guides templates do not 
conform then why do they recommend utilization of the GFDL license? If 
the templates do conform, which it should given they are recommending 
utilization of the GFDL; then why not use the templates?

>
>>
>> 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
>
I never meant ESR authored the guides templates, simply that himself 
and/or others from FSF surely reviewed the derivative documentation of 
the guide as being in conformance.

Are you saying that they haven't? I was a former adminstrator of 
linux-howtos before the LDP was formed, and have seen the many legal 
issues come to light since the LDP was formed. Even when I administered 
the howtos, legality was an issue. I don't have first-hand knowledge but 
can only assume that they have done so.

Cheers,
Thomas