Licensing on the wearable howto

One questions I have is why is the document still being
hosted?
it should be taken down and something else should be written
to replace it.


On 12/13/06, David Lawyer <davelafn.org> wrote:
> > Wednesday, 13 December 2006 00:48, orphreygmail.com
wrote:
> > > The wearable HOWTO, located at
> > > http://tldp
.org/HOWTO/Wearable-HOWTO.html, has a section entitled
> > > "Copyright, Disclaimer and
Trademarks" which contains the following
> > > text:
> > >
> > > This means that all sections of the document
are Invariant Sections.
> >
> >
> > > The "Invariant Sections" are
certain Secondary Sections whose titles
> > > are designated, as being those of Invariant
Sections, in the notice
> > > that says that the Document is released under
this License.  If a
> > > section does not fit the above definition of
Secondary then it is not
> > > allowed to be designated as Invariant.
> >
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:49:59AM +0900, Alex
Nordstrom wrote:
> > For lazy readers: The entire licence may be void.
My layman
> > recommendation is to cease distributing the
document until the author
> > agrees on less ambiguous licensing terms.
>
> I would suggest that we keep distributing it until we
either can
> locate the author (and get him to fix it), or until a
replacement is
> obtained.  Since the author sent it to us with a
license that allows
> distribution, and should have known that we distribute
docs sent to
> us, I think it's OK to keep distributing it.  The very
fact that he
> licensed it under GFDL implies that the author allows
it to be
> distributed.
>
> However, it seems to me that it shouldn't be modified,
as that was the
> author's intention.  So one can read this and other
docs about the
> subject and then write a new howto from scratch.  It's
not allowed to
> just paraphrase the existing doc.
>
>                         David Lawyer
>
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/
>
>

______________________
http://lists.tldp.org/

Hi all,

As the current maintainer of the document in question (in as
much as
one can maintain an uneditable document), I have no
objection to
writing a new one and making the licensing less restrictive.

Are documents in TLDP required to be GFDL licensed?

-Abe

On 12/14/06, gerardo arnaez <garnaezgmail.com> wrote:
> One questions I have is why is the document still being
hosted?
> it should be taken down and something else should be
written to replace it.
>
>
> On 12/13/06, David Lawyer <davelafn.org> wrote:
> > > Wednesday, 13 December 2006 00:48,
orphreygmail.com wrote:
> > > > The wearable HOWTO, located at
> > > > http://tldp
.org/HOWTO/Wearable-HOWTO.html, has a section entitled
> > > > "Copyright, Disclaimer and
Trademarks" which contains the following
> > > > text:
> > > >
> > > > This means that all sections of the
document are Invariant Sections.
> > >
> > >
> > > > The "Invariant Sections" are
certain Secondary Sections whose titles
> > > > are designated, as being those of
Invariant Sections, in the notice
> > > > that says that the Document is released
under this License.  If a
> > > > section does not fit the above
definition of Secondary then it is not
> > > > allowed to be designated as Invariant.
> > >
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:49:59AM +0900, Alex
Nordstrom wrote:
> > > For lazy readers: The entire licence may be
void. My layman
> > > recommendation is to cease distributing the
document until the author
> > > agrees on less ambiguous licensing terms.
> >
> > I would suggest that we keep distributing it until
we either can
> > locate the author (and get him to fix it), or
until a replacement is
> > obtained.  Since the author sent it to us with a
license that allows
> > distribution, and should have known that we
distribute docs sent to
> > us, I think it's OK to keep distributing it.  The
very fact that he
> > licensed it under GFDL implies that the author
allows it to be
> > distributed.
> >
> > However, it seems to me that it shouldn't be
modified, as that was the
> > author's intention.  So one can read this and
other docs about the
> > subject and then write a new howto from scratch. 
It's not allowed to
> > just paraphrase the existing doc.
> >
> >                         David Lawyer
> >
> > ______________________
> > http://lists.tldp.org/
> >
> >
>
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/
>
>

______________________
http://lists.tldp.org/

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 11:12:07AM -0500, orphreygmail.com
wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As the current maintainer of the document in question
(in as much as
> one can maintain an uneditable document), I have no
objection to
> writing a new one and making the licensing less
restrictive.
> 
> Are documents in TLDP required to be GFDL licensed?

No.  In fact we accept a license like the author of
"wearable"
intended but made ambiguous by violating the terms of his
own license.
But we encourage licenses that permit modification in
contrast to the
intentions of the "werable" author.  Thus we give
an author a wide
choice of licenses which is not necessarily the best way to
do things.
But it's been LDP's policy from the start.  There's a short
"boilerplate" license that LDP once came up with
which you can use if
you like.

I really think that LDP needs to someday create it's own
license,
but that's a lot of collective effort so I think that before
doing
this we need to streamline our procedures for authoring. 
And I'm
expecting to work on this after I do some updating of my
HOWTOs.

			David Lawyer

______________________
http://lists.tldp.org/