On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 07:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Karsten Wade wrote:
> OTOH, Spot (and others) have reminded me that the differences between
> distros outweigh the similarities.
That is not a problem for some of the documentation like basic server
side sys administration guides.
We'd still need a full analysis to see if it was worth it. It could be
that 20% or 50% or 80% of the content could be shared.
> Maybe ... maybe we need to coordinate with other distros to put
a common
> front-end on TLDP to allow us all to update it, and use it as a common
> docbase? We can use any content that is GPL, afaik, although it's not
> our preferred license for documentation. The majority of TLDP is still
> GPL, right?
GPL? You mean GNU FDL. TLDP licensing is a bit of mess but I would guess
that the important docs are under GNU FDL which I believe is
incompatible with Open Publication License.
:( Bummer ...
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/html/doc-licensing.html
Because authors retain copyright and choose their own license, there
isn't going to be a way that e.g. LDP could multi-license content. So
that pretty much lets us out of the running.
FWIW, I'm glad. I don't like the GNU FDL. It's a PITA to administrate,
I believe the lawyers who tell me it doesn't give enough protection, and
it definitely seems contradictory to the GPL. It's too bad the CC BY-SA
doesn't include warranty protection ...
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project
Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. |
fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\