From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id GAA14551 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 06:56:11 +1000 Received: (qmail 22210 invoked by uid 38); 29 Aug 1999 20:56:03 -0000 Resent-Date: 29 Aug 1999 20:56:03 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: dan@telent.net To: mdw@metalab.unc.edu, pjones@metalab.unc.edu Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: LDP web site X-Attribution: dan From: Daniel Barlow Date: 29 Aug 1999 21:51:10 +0100 Message-ID: <87g112ia4h.fsf@tninkpad.telent.net> Lines: 45 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070095 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.95) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: Daniel Barlow Resent-Message-ID: <"ol5p1B.A.haF.i5Zy3"@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/278 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org 0) Matt, many thanks for your timely intervention re: the web pages. 1) Paul Jones, metalab maintainer, has offered to make the LDP site on metalab into a virtual webserver rather than a redirect: http://linuxchix.devin.com/techwriters/1999-Jul_Aug/0226.html Does anyone see any reason why we should not take him up on that? Jim (Pick), this would presumably require you to turn the www.linuxdoc.org record into a CNAME for metalab - would that be OK? 2) He also offered to provide CVS : http://linuxchix.devin.com/techwriters/1999-Jul_Aug/0231.html I don't believe that we should force people to use CVS (after all, not everybody can) but I think that if the option existed - it would make collaborative projects a lot simpler. - by making it simpler for the general community to get SGML source, would make feedback with patches much simpler to produce Nik Clayton, of the FreeBSD Documentation Project, has provided a lot of useful advice on how to arrange such a repository http://linuxchix.devin.com/techwriters/1999-Jul_Aug/0265.html http://linuxchix.devin.com/techwriters/1999-Jul_Aug/0277.html Supposing the existence of a suitable CVS repository, it would be silly not to integrate it with the web site. Is automated submission currently being worked on, and what plans are there to integrate it with CVS? (I guess either the autosubmit could submit into a cvs checkout area, or cvs sould be one of the sources it gathers new documents from) n+1) The techwriters list archive is marvellous. Does anyone know of a service that would archive ldp-discuss in the same way? I'll offer, but haven't yet finished building the machine that I would host it on, so it'll be another two weeks or so if provided by me. -dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id IAA15086 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 08:44:38 +1000 Received: (qmail 24028 invoked by uid 38); 29 Aug 1999 22:44:30 -0000 Resent-Date: 29 Aug 1999 22:44:30 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: psj@mustec.eu.org Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 23:41:50 +0100 (GMT) From: P Jenner To: mdw@metalab.unc.edu cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: LDP web site - suggestions Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"dc6ErB.A.T3F.Ofby3"@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/283 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org On the LDP website you ask for suggestions - I have two relatively simple ones: 1) A "What is new on the web site" page (similar to www.gnu.org) so updates can easily be seen 2) The mirroring system would be a lot nicer handled by the linuxdoc.org DNS in a similar way to kernel.org and debian.org. In other words it would be nice to point www.XX.linuxdoc.org at an LDP mirror where XX is the ISO country code (eg. fr, de, gb) nearest the mirror. Paul ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul S Jenner GNU/Linux Advocate E-mail: psj@mustec.eu.org WWW: http://www.mustec.eu.org/~psj/ UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL IS NOT WELCOME AT THIS ADDRESS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id FAA19680 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 05:06:12 +1000 Received: (qmail 6273 invoked by uid 38); 5 Sep 1999 19:06:05 -0000 Resent-Date: 5 Sep 1999 19:06:05 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@victis.oeil.qc.ca Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 20:54:05 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Matt Welsh Cc: Tim , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Howto submission bounces Message-ID: <19990905205405.A1350@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <199909051804.LAA27852@bhikku.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <199909051804.LAA27852@bhikku.CS.Berkeley.EDU>; from Matt Welsh on Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 11:04:09AM -0700 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/341 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 11:04:09AM -0700, Matt Welsh wrote: > > I conacted the list maintainer(s) a week ago and there has been no Lucky man :) > > creation of the submit-howto list and evidently no knowledge of it. > I was under the impression that the correct address was=20 > ldp-submit@lists.linuxdoc.org. Could we have that alias created? I'm still asking for ldp-submit, maybe it will happen soon. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Anywhere/Partout: guylhem-pager \@/ oeil.qc.ca --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN9K8Td+QeWug/qfFAQFi5gP8DCvdln3YFmpBTxQB8dyAQ5zK0ULH+ZPD zaRgn7tmhfK1702gmw+T3DSPfEsQno/f58cztmmLJ4+eo1Oxr5rqDhTPEsP5WXQ7 leATCPfO4XVmNnp2p63ctXr2Sxd0ByZhVo0DrQnC/1cMx713OGuIxGM1QIDz5xKx TP9NuXzbfs0= =neje -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id EAA21455 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 04:21:58 +1000 Received: (qmail 32337 invoked by uid 38); 10 Sep 1999 18:20:59 -0000 Resent-Date: 10 Sep 1999 18:20:58 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:30:16 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mr. Poet" X-Sender: jd@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com To: Matt Welsh cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Let the war begin In-Reply-To: <199909101815.LAA10546@mnemosyne.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/366 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hello, O.k. I am going to assume you are viewing in Netscape or Lynx both of which do not support style sheets correctly so you will not see the color. I was consiering leaving the LDP logo but it didn't go with the overall design. I will put the old logo back until either I or someone else presents a new logo. Logo Contest anyone? Poet Development in Real Time LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org Consultants - VAR - Commercial - Networking - WWW/Intranet On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Matt Welsh wrote: > > This is fine, but let's make the front page look as nice as the original, > at least, so it doesn't look like the LDP is taking a big step back in its > design and scope. Retaining the logo would be a first step. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id EAA21493 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 04:28:15 +1000 Received: (qmail 5463 invoked by uid 38); 10 Sep 1999 18:28:06 -0000 Resent-Date: 10 Sep 1999 18:28:06 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:37:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mr. Poet" X-Sender: jd@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com To: Matt Welsh cc: "Mr. Poet" , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org, ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org, recipient list not shown: ; Subject: Re: Let the war begin In-Reply-To: <199909101823.LAA10939@mnemosyne.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/368 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hello, I did not design them for IE. I designed them to follow the standards, HTML3/4, CSS1. There are no IE specific functions within the code. I would never do such a thing. That would be bad design. Beyond that although the majority of people that will look at the LDP site will be linux users, you would probably be surprised at how many (good or bad) run IE. 25% of LinuxPorts visistors run IE, We can not just ignore because either A. Their work won't let them run Netscape B. They have not yet learned the "right" ;) way. Poet Development in Real Time LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org Consultants - VAR - Commercial - Networking - WWW/Intranet On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Matt Welsh wrote: > > "Mr. Poet" writes: > > Hello, > > > > O.k. I am going to assume you are viewing in Netscape or Lynx both of > > which do not support style sheets correctly so you will not see the color. > > It's probably not good to design these pages for IE, since this is a Linux > site. Please use only standard HTML functions which Netscape and IE both > support. The pages looked fine before, without style sheets. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA05334 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 07:42:17 +1000 Received: (qmail 9913 invoked by uid 38); 26 Sep 1999 21:40:08 -0000 Resent-Date: 26 Sep 1999 21:40:08 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 21:41:37 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Matt Welsh Cc: bf347@lafn.org, ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Help compiling SGML Message-ID: <19990926214137.A2373@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <199909261757.KAA28873@mnemosyne.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=FCuugMFkClbJLl1L; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <199909261757.KAA28873@mnemosyne.CS.Berkeley.EDU>; from Matt Welsh on Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:00:52AM -0700 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/586 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Content-Length: 0 Lines: 47 --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:00:52AM -0700, Matt Welsh wrote: > And just to add my two cents on the licensing issue: It's probably best to > recommend a particular license for new authors, but not force people to > adhere to a single license. This only reduces the number of authors willi= ng > to contribute. I think I previously said the same, with different words. DGPL will certainly be our recommended license, however any license following the new manifesto (*) will be accepted. * : current manifesto is a bit old, and should be updated/fixed. David, do you have time to update it, following the ideas you previously gave here ? (we *need* a LDP license guide) --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN+528d+QeWug/qfFAQFjawQAnu0lfA4/lDK5jPqPvpp5FsarWkVifkKl 9lJYhjKb4xZH1MJ3bM6yIqaYgJRrGw8IkMEg4CImiegXNmbOxxwULXrU2dOEWZXA m0fzIukeWtWlfFUvKFMW2i3+0hG6V8KqZmAscWJLB5SMizfm4fQryy1Pt1AThXS/ CirZEW62MCY= =ChuM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id CAA10713 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 02:01:03 +1000 Received: (qmail 17101 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 16:00:54 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 16:00:54 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:09:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mr. Poet" X-Sender: jd@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com To: Matt Welsh cc: "Mr. Poet" , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: LDP web site, etc. In-Reply-To: <199909271554.IAA19200@mnemosyne.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/608 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hello, Something else that may work is if you only allowed html based banners. In other words using only CSS and or tables. It is not going to be as flashy as the normal banners but it still achieves the same basic functionality. Anyway -- food for thought, Poet LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Matt Welsh wrote: > > > I have also considered running > > banners for other OSS sites the way that linux.com does but that will have > > to wait until more things come around the corner. > > I hate banners. They're on practically every web page I can think of; > wouldn't it be nice if the LDP were a bannerless oasis in the desert of > the World Wide Web? > > There are other ways to promote other OSS projects (a list of links, for > example). Banners waste bandwidth and annoy the hell out of people with > slow modems. Let's chuck 'em! > > Matt > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id KAA22035 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 10:03:10 +1000 From: ldp-announce-request@lists.debian.org Received: (qmail 10970 invoked by uid 38); 28 Aug 1999 00:03:06 -0000 Date: 28 Aug 1999 00:03:06 -0000 Message-ID: <19990828000306.10961.qmail@murphy.debian.org> To: terry@albert.animats.net References: <199908272356.JAA21983@albert.animats.net> In-Reply-To: <199908272356.JAA21983@albert.animats.net> X-Loop: ldp-announce@lists.debian.org Subject: CONFIRM s082719030510919 You have requested that the following address: terry@albert.animats.net be added to the ldp-announce mailing list. You have NOT yet been subscribed to the mailing list. To subscribe you need to confirm your subscription request by sending email to the address: ldp-announce-request@lists.debian.org with the Subject string: CONFIRM s082719030510919 With a reasonable good email program a reply to this message should be sufficient When your confirm message has been received the above listed address will be (un)subscribed. If the above address is incorrect, please do not send in the confirm message listed above. Instead, send a new (un)subscribe request containing the Subject: subscribe correct-address@correct-domain or unsubscribe correct-address@correct-domain and wait for a new confirmation message. A copy of the (un)subcription request appears below. In the event that you did not send a request to (un)subscribe, the headers of the message may help you discover who sent the request. If you are unable to subscribe to our lists through this mechanism please don't hesitate to contact listmaster@debian.org directly. >From terry@albert.animats.net Fri Aug 27 19:03:04 1999 >X-Envelope-Sender: terry@albert.animats.net >Received: (qmail 566 invoked from network); 27 Aug 1999 23:56:26 -0000 >Received: from albert.animats.net (root@203.41.101.122) > by murphy.debian.org with SMTP; 27 Aug 1999 23:56:24 -0000 >Received: from albert.animats.net (terry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id JAA21983; > Sat, 28 Aug 1999 09:56:09 +1000 >Message-Id: <199908272356.JAA21983@albert.animats.net> >Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 09:56:06 +1000 (EST) >From: terry@albert.animats.net >Subject: subscribe terry@albert.animats.net >To: ldp-private-request@lists.linuxdoc.org, ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org, > ldp-announce@lists.linuxdoc.org >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII > > >subscribe terry@albert.animats.net > > > From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id KAA22036 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 10:03:11 +1000 From: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Received: (qmail 11022 invoked by uid 38); 28 Aug 1999 00:03:08 -0000 Date: 28 Aug 1999 00:03:08 -0000 Message-ID: <19990828000308.11014.qmail@murphy.debian.org> To: terry@albert.animats.net References: <199908272356.JAA21983@albert.animats.net> In-Reply-To: <199908272356.JAA21983@albert.animats.net> X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Subject: CONFIRM s082719030710966 You have requested that the following address: terry@albert.animats.net be added to the ldp-discuss mailing list. You have NOT yet been subscribed to the mailing list. To subscribe you need to confirm your subscription request by sending email to the address: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with the Subject string: CONFIRM s082719030710966 With a reasonable good email program a reply to this message should be sufficient When your confirm message has been received the above listed address will be (un)subscribed. If the above address is incorrect, please do not send in the confirm message listed above. Instead, send a new (un)subscribe request containing the Subject: subscribe correct-address@correct-domain or unsubscribe correct-address@correct-domain and wait for a new confirmation message. A copy of the (un)subcription request appears below. In the event that you did not send a request to (un)subscribe, the headers of the message may help you discover who sent the request. If you are unable to subscribe to our lists through this mechanism please don't hesitate to contact listmaster@debian.org directly. >From terry@albert.animats.net Fri Aug 27 19:03:05 1999 >X-Envelope-Sender: terry@albert.animats.net >Received: (qmail 566 invoked from network); 27 Aug 1999 23:56:26 -0000 >Received: from albert.animats.net (root@203.41.101.122) > by murphy.debian.org with SMTP; 27 Aug 1999 23:56:24 -0000 >Received: from albert.animats.net (terry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id JAA21983; > Sat, 28 Aug 1999 09:56:09 +1000 >Message-Id: <199908272356.JAA21983@albert.animats.net> >Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 09:56:06 +1000 (EST) >From: terry@albert.animats.net >Subject: subscribe terry@albert.animats.net >To: ldp-private-request@lists.linuxdoc.org, ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org, > ldp-announce@lists.linuxdoc.org >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII > > >subscribe terry@albert.animats.net > > > From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id KAA22037 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 10:03:12 +1000 From: ldp-private-request@lists.debian.org Received: (qmail 11046 invoked by uid 38); 28 Aug 1999 00:03:08 -0000 Date: 28 Aug 1999 00:03:08 -0000 Message-ID: <19990828000308.11038.qmail@murphy.debian.org> To: terry@albert.animats.net References: <199908272356.JAA21983@albert.animats.net> In-Reply-To: <199908272356.JAA21983@albert.animats.net> X-Loop: ldp-private@lists.debian.org Subject: CONFIRM s082719030811000 You have requested that the following address: terry@albert.animats.net be added to the ldp-private mailing list. You have NOT yet been subscribed to the mailing list. To subscribe you need to confirm your subscription request by sending email to the address: ldp-private-request@lists.debian.org with the Subject string: CONFIRM s082719030811000 With a reasonable good email program a reply to this message should be sufficient When your confirm message has been received the above listed address will be (un)subscribed. If the above address is incorrect, please do not send in the confirm message listed above. Instead, send a new (un)subscribe request containing the Subject: subscribe correct-address@correct-domain or unsubscribe correct-address@correct-domain and wait for a new confirmation message. A copy of the (un)subcription request appears below. In the event that you did not send a request to (un)subscribe, the headers of the message may help you discover who sent the request. If you are unable to subscribe to our lists through this mechanism please don't hesitate to contact listmaster@debian.org directly. >From terry@albert.animats.net Fri Aug 27 19:03:07 1999 >X-Envelope-Sender: terry@albert.animats.net >Received: (qmail 566 invoked from network); 27 Aug 1999 23:56:26 -0000 >Received: from albert.animats.net (root@203.41.101.122) > by murphy.debian.org with SMTP; 27 Aug 1999 23:56:24 -0000 >Received: from albert.animats.net (terry@localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id JAA21983; > Sat, 28 Aug 1999 09:56:09 +1000 >Message-Id: <199908272356.JAA21983@albert.animats.net> >Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 09:56:06 +1000 (EST) >From: terry@albert.animats.net >Subject: subscribe terry@albert.animats.net >To: ldp-private-request@lists.linuxdoc.org, ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org, > ldp-announce@lists.linuxdoc.org >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII > > >subscribe terry@albert.animats.net > > > From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from luna.oit.unc.edu (luna.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.4]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id KAA22161 for ; Sat, 28 Aug 1999 10:15:25 +1000 Received: from titan.oit.unc.edu (titan.metalab.unc.edu [152.19.254.14]) by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14641 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:26:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (pjones@localhost) by titan.oit.unc.edu (8.8.6/8.8.6/rchk1.19) with ESMTP id UAA06951 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:15:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: pjones owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:15:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Jones X-Sender: pjones@titan.oit.unc.edu To: terry@albert.animats.net Subject: Re: ldp-l needs to die In-Reply-To: <199908272346.JAA21918@albert.animats.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII i agree. it's so simple to move a subscriber list; why isn't that done? ========================================================================== Paul Jones "We must protect our precious bodily fluids!" General Jack D Ripper http://MetaLab.unc.edu/pjones/ at the Site Formerly Known As SunSITE.unc.edu pjones@MetaLab.unc.edu voice: (919) 962-7600 fax: (919) 962-8071 =========================================================================== From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0003 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from victis.oeil.qc.ca (IDENT:mail@paul-nord.asso.ups-tlse.fr [195.220.50.6]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id IAA12845 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 08:47:09 +1000 Received: from guylhem by victis.oeil.qc.ca with local (Exim 3.02 #3) id 11NOZx-0000GX-00; Sun, 05 Sep 1999 00:46:37 +0200 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 00:46:37 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: terry@albert.animats.net Cc: LDP discuss Subject: Re: Should we split mini HOWTOs? Message-ID: <19990905004637.E976@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="/aVve/J9H4Wl5yVO"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 --/aVve/J9H4Wl5yVO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 03:25:15PM +1000, terry@albert.animats.net wrote: > > For something like that, I'd suggest one document with chapters for > > variants. The chapters can stand alone, yet have necessary > > references > > to details and generalities elsewhere. Then people can design the > > skeleton documents and others will plug in the details with which > > they > > are more familiar. > That's the sort of thing I had in mind, yes. That's what I'm doing and I'd also prefer that, however if someone submit such little guides, maybe they think the HOWTO was too generic enough for some special problem. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Anywhere/Partout: guylhem-pager \@/ oeil.qc.ca --/aVve/J9H4Wl5yVO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN9GhTd+QeWug/qfFAQF1SgQAhnrSHfcAQleUUsqqWmbbWFQ2C0vN11A0 UwnSQIi7ECMTXQcx6/+8iuysWOn2UACG6sNoAKF4P7nuJizN5Vz1N5QRqaVCBjI1 rblQ1pA/B6U7qVajsf1eMbVyiNINH4HfvCsQHQEZ+q0mQM9GMdYVnzYnHGazcPrw 4ix9i4qjB1E= =FL8H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/aVve/J9H4Wl5yVO-- From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0003 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from victis.oeil.qc.ca (IDENT:mail@paul-nord.asso.ups-tlse.fr [195.220.50.6]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id IAA12873 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 08:49:41 +1000 Received: from guylhem by victis.oeil.qc.ca with local (Exim 3.02 #3) id 11NOcU-0000H0-00; Sun, 05 Sep 1999 00:49:14 +0200 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 00:49:14 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: terry@albert.animats.net Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Message-ID: <19990905004914.H976@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="LYw3s/afESlflPpp"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 --LYw3s/afESlflPpp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 08:57:09AM +1000, terry@albert.animats.net wrote: > This confuses my original understanding of what HOWTO documents were > supposed to be and how they were differentiated from the Guides. The > HOWTO documents are meant to be step-by-step instructions I thought. Now very few HOWTO give only step by step instructions. ; there's always many explainations which confuses beginners. For ex, on the Mail HOWTO they expect to find "how can I make sendmail work in my RH6", while there's general information on email, protocols, then smail, qmail and exim... > I think the power saving example is exactly the right sort of thing to > have in a Mini-HOWTO. Mini refers to size, while we should refer to specificity --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Anywhere/Partout: guylhem-pager \@/ oeil.qc.ca --LYw3s/afESlflPpp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN9Gh6t+QeWug/qfFAQH/wQP/bQerw2PdEDN8m93HYailUeFc5NzTIJeG cviPAaPdE6QMNJImqC8QrPuzkwpsZbicHT30ayUDEh3/gd/pvP3B6lbRRGelmdgE MwkmY+KGDfy1fJo3y3ma0CyeRg9RpzxQWQGY41ceo6WQJO2A4crbvOblRWwtepBz v6JAAm7uoBM= =M8kE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LYw3s/afESlflPpp-- From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0003 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id IAA12892 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 08:51:25 +1000 Received: (qmail 13458 invoked by uid 38); 4 Sep 1999 22:49:53 -0000 Resent-Date: 4 Sep 1999 22:49:53 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@victis.oeil.qc.ca Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 00:49:14 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: terry@albert.animats.net Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Message-ID: <19990905004914.H976@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="LYw3s/afESlflPpp"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <14kYuC.A.pRD.QIa03@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Subject: Unidentified subject! X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/332 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --LYw3s/afESlflPpp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 08:57:09AM +1000, terry@albert.animats.net wrote: > This confuses my original understanding of what HOWTO documents were > supposed to be and how they were differentiated from the Guides. The > HOWTO documents are meant to be step-by-step instructions I thought. Now very few HOWTO give only step by step instructions. ; there's always many explainations which confuses beginners. For ex, on the Mail HOWTO they expect to find "how can I make sendmail work in my RH6", while there's general information on email, protocols, then smail, qmail and exim... > I think the power saving example is exactly the right sort of thing to > have in a Mini-HOWTO. Mini refers to size, while we should refer to specificity --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Anywhere/Partout: guylhem-pager \@/ oeil.qc.ca --LYw3s/afESlflPpp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN9Gh6t+QeWug/qfFAQH/wQP/bQerw2PdEDN8m93HYailUeFc5NzTIJeG cviPAaPdE6QMNJImqC8QrPuzkwpsZbicHT30ayUDEh3/gd/pvP3B6lbRRGelmdgE MwkmY+KGDfy1fJo3y3ma0CyeRg9RpzxQWQGY41ceo6WQJO2A4crbvOblRWwtepBz v6JAAm7uoBM= =M8kE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LYw3s/afESlflPpp-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from victis.oeil.qc.ca (IDENT:mail@paul-nord.asso.ups-tlse.fr [195.220.50.6]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id IAA12918 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 08:56:03 +1000 Received: from guylhem by victis.oeil.qc.ca with local (Exim 3.02 #3) id 11NOie-0000IB-00 for terry@albert.animats.net; Sun, 05 Sep 1999 00:55:36 +0200 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 00:55:36 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: terry@albert.animats.net Subject: linux au Message-ID: <19990905005536.M976@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=p1Od3smaOkJqivj4; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 --p1Od3smaOkJqivj4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 08:52:13AM +1000, terry@albert.animats.net wrote: > Are these for local mirrors or local documentation projects? Local documentation project, i.e. not necessarily a different language, but local information (LUG, meetings, bookstores...) > If for mirroring purposes then you can add my interest for .au, we've > run an official mirror for some time and wish to continue doing so. www.au.linuxdoc.org could point to it. We will not replace any local LDP, we'll just add more pointers :-) --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Anywhere/Partout: guylhem-pager \@/ oeil.qc.ca --p1Od3smaOkJqivj4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN9GjaN+QeWug/qfFAQEvcQQAqEtktNawXs+b9DuPdrwx4u5pOQ162Rfe prvyMQvT8JRs0qJreIHm/vaOdbhQrBwTSXBjiHzJyZKdVsxIk4rwHyYMVlBBQz+7 f1T4bQcuhUu29osP6/FpzDiq2DZDCRocfpSOxCWEg+PwwgO2K9DPbx+oB8/2BziQ N28FgAiBZho= =MUmb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --p1Od3smaOkJqivj4-- From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:37 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from m2.pp.htv.fi (m2ep.pp.htv.fi [212.90.64.98]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id CAA18887 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 02:30:53 +1000 Received: from m7.pp.htv.fi (m7.pp.htv.fi [212.90.64.22]) by m2.pp.htv.fi (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA04989 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:30:13 +0300 (EETDST) Received: from hackstation (cs66044.pp.htv.fi [212.90.66.44]) by m7.pp.htv.fi (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA17520 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:31:27 +0300 (EETDST) Received: from liw by hackstation with local (Exim 3.03 #1 (Debian)) id 11NfCV-0001ND-00 for ; Sun, 05 Sep 1999 19:31:31 +0300 From: Lars Wirzenius MIME-Version: 1.0 To: terry@albert.animats.net Subject: Re: In-Reply-To: <199908222159.HAA19590@albert.animats.net> Mail-Copies-To: never X-No-Archive: yes Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 16:31:22 GMT Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-md5"; boundary="127.0.0.1.1000.1499.936549090.066.20494"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: Lars Wirzenius This is a MIME message. --127.0.0.1.1000.1499.936549090.066.20494 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable terry@albert.animats.net: > On 22 Aug, Guylhem Aznar wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 07:52:28PM +0000, Marco Budde wrote: > >> But the LDP license is not free! > > = > > I consider it free. > > = > > Documents are not like software, we need additional restrictions, even > > if you think it's not free. > = > At risk of instantianting "LDP License Debate 1999", I do not believe > you will find any concensus on that matter. > = > I for one believe that documents *are* like software and that we do not > need any additional restrictions. I've been reading through my LDP folders, and I just have to say I agree with you. If that wasn't clear from years past. :) (Am not saying it in public, the LDP has had enough license debates for the time being.) -- = Stupid little mailer under construction, sorry for any problems. --127.0.0.1.1000.1499.936549090.066.20494 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v0.9.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iQCVAwUAN9Ka4YQRll5MupLRAQHEJwQAgTXKKvp6A5PNXlzqL2l0YfjMCvAyrV+C LQP39PDAiAnsyhFJgkF81l3VmwC5nQg10IgCTBFkEb99tFO5/3NJ4vzfhNOMf6Mw U+UWLuRS2kySuV4Pz6T5kHCuBhC25qd1uCFOreZlgbUjAMIJCynb+NRrZZUuawsZ 2eMzyvtBUvw= =61Ue -----END PGP MESSAGE----- --127.0.0.1.1000.1499.936549090.066.20494-- This was a MIME message. From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0003 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from m2.pp.htv.fi (m2ep.pp.htv.fi [212.90.64.98]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id CAA18887 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 02:30:53 +1000 Received: from m7.pp.htv.fi (m7.pp.htv.fi [212.90.64.22]) by m2.pp.htv.fi (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA04989 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:30:13 +0300 (EETDST) Received: from hackstation (cs66044.pp.htv.fi [212.90.66.44]) by m7.pp.htv.fi (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA17520 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:31:27 +0300 (EETDST) Received: from liw by hackstation with local (Exim 3.03 #1 (Debian)) id 11NfCV-0001ND-00 for ; Sun, 05 Sep 1999 19:31:31 +0300 From: Lars Wirzenius MIME-Version: 1.0 To: terry@albert.animats.net Subject: Re: In-Reply-To: <199908222159.HAA19590@albert.animats.net> Mail-Copies-To: never X-No-Archive: yes Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 16:31:22 GMT Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-md5"; boundary="127.0.0.1.1000.1499.936549090.066.20494"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: Lars Wirzenius This is a MIME message. --127.0.0.1.1000.1499.936549090.066.20494 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable terry@albert.animats.net: > On 22 Aug, Guylhem Aznar wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 07:52:28PM +0000, Marco Budde wrote: > >> But the LDP license is not free! > > = > > I consider it free. > > = > > Documents are not like software, we need additional restrictions, even > > if you think it's not free. > = > At risk of instantianting "LDP License Debate 1999", I do not believe > you will find any concensus on that matter. > = > I for one believe that documents *are* like software and that we do not > need any additional restrictions. I've been reading through my LDP folders, and I just have to say I agree with you. If that wasn't clear from years past. :) (Am not saying it in public, the LDP has had enough license debates for the time being.) -- = Stupid little mailer under construction, sorry for any problems. --127.0.0.1.1000.1499.936549090.066.20494 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v0.9.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iQCVAwUAN9Ka4YQRll5MupLRAQHEJwQAgTXKKvp6A5PNXlzqL2l0YfjMCvAyrV+C LQP39PDAiAnsyhFJgkF81l3VmwC5nQg10IgCTBFkEb99tFO5/3NJ4vzfhNOMf6Mw U+UWLuRS2kySuV4Pz6T5kHCuBhC25qd1uCFOreZlgbUjAMIJCynb+NRrZZUuawsZ 2eMzyvtBUvw= =61Ue -----END PGP MESSAGE----- --127.0.0.1.1000.1499.936549090.066.20494-- This was a MIME message. From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from sgi.com (sgi.SGI.COM [192.48.153.1]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id HAA10211 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 07:00:24 +1000 Received: from webster.timonium.sgi.com ([169.238.21.2]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via SMTP id OAA07268; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 14:00:14 -0700 (PDT) mail_from (gferg@hoop.timonium.sgi.com) Received: from hoop.timonium.sgi.com by webster.timonium.sgi.com via ESMTP (950413.SGI.8.6.12/911001.SGI) id RAA15623; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:21:45 -0400 Received: by hoop.timonium.sgi.com (950413.SGI.8.6.12/940406.SGI.AUTO) id RAA25568; Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:07:03 -0400 From: "Greg Ferguson" Message-Id: <9909161707.ZM25566@hoop.timonium.sgi.com> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:07:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: Terry Dawson "linuxdoc.org: copyright and Manifesto" (Sep 16, 5:21pm) References: <19990916172117.B6135@albert.animats.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.3 08feb96 MediaMail) To: Terry Dawson , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: linuxdoc.org: copyright and Manifesto Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Based on some of Terry's observations, I have updated the copyright document. I have removed the "Publishing LDP Manuals" area from it, and instead link to the area found within the Manifesto. There are also a couple of other links to the Manifesto that are specifically called out. The copyright is found at - http://www.linuxdoc.org/copyright.html and the Manifesto (also modified slightly) can be seen at - http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP-Manifesto.html Terry (or anyone else that may have comments on these documents), if this doesn't capture what you're looking for, please email me. Ferg From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA10219 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 07:00:43 +1000 Received: (qmail 21986 invoked by uid 38); 16 Sep 1999 21:00:33 -0000 Resent-Date: 16 Sep 1999 21:00:33 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: gferg@hoop.timonium.sgi.com From: "Greg Ferguson" Message-Id: <9909161707.ZM25566@hoop.timonium.sgi.com> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:07:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: Terry Dawson "linuxdoc.org: copyright and Manifesto" (Sep 16, 5:21pm) References: <19990916172117.B6135@albert.animats.net> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.3 08feb96 MediaMail) To: Terry Dawson , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: linuxdoc.org: copyright and Manifesto Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <2btT5B.A.ZXF.wpV43@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/459 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Based on some of Terry's observations, I have updated the copyright document. I have removed the "Publishing LDP Manuals" area from it, and instead link to the area found within the Manifesto. There are also a couple of other links to the Manifesto that are specifically called out. The copyright is found at - http://www.linuxdoc.org/copyright.html and the Manifesto (also modified slightly) can be seen at - http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP-Manifesto.html Terry (or anyone else that may have comments on these documents), if this doesn't capture what you're looking for, please email me. Ferg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from maya.dyndns.org (IDENT:root@ts1-15.owns.interhop.net [165.154.232.79]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id QAA12898 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:22:35 +1000 Received: (from garym@localhost) by maya.dyndns.org (8.9.3/8.9.1/hvv-redhat) id XAA15193; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 23:22:08 -0700 Sender: garym@mail.wccweb.com To: terry@albert.animats.net Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: [off topic] Re: Licensing issues References: <199909192112.HAA10280@albert.animats.net> From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Date: 20 Sep 1999 02:22:07 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: Gary Lawrence Murphy Organization: TeleDynamics --- the Art of Being There X-Url: http://www.teledyn.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>>>> "t" == terry writes: >> Let's be honest: The same is true of all 'official' Linux >> distributions. t> Of course they can. What you suggest is true for Linux t> distributions isn't true. The RedHat distribution has been t> picked up, tinkered with slightly, restamped with another t> another name and sold off. The GPL specifically allows that. Tinkered slightly may be the problem: I've heard RH is considering branding derived editions differently to distinguish them from the 'official' release, but this still misses my point. My point was that the *physical* distribution, the box, the text, the colour scheme and the logo cannot be duplicated or even simulated. The physical manifestion of their release is not free, only the aetherial content of the CD. t> ... "Official" SuSE is only "official" as far as t> SuSE is concerned, not the wider Linux community for example. With wider community considers the tux.org as an official distro, and you and I cannot take that, change it, and redistribute it as tux.org Linux. We can, of course, the licence allows it, but it would be foolish to do so. t> We are free at any time to go and produce a divergent kernel Yes, divergent. But we cannot directly change that distro, only create a new one. RH's changed kernel, for example, drives me nuts with every release, but I know it is a RH kernel, not a tux.org kernel. t> Now you have me confused. What is 'official linux' in your t> mind? I think you're confused. The linux that is produced from the Makefile in the Linux tarballs you would download from ftp.tux.org. If you prefer a different word, call it the 'reference kernel' but the effect is the same: All the others take that, change it, but release it clearly as their own. t> Hmm... I think in that case the publishers want to be t> commissioning their own documents then. I can understand a t> publishing company wanting to protect the value it adds to a t> document: indexing, editing, high quality illustration, t> typesetting, binding etc. but I don't see how it wins anything t> by wanting control of the document content. They don't want control of the content, or more precisely, I believe they will eventually see they don't need it and will benefit more if they let it go. They do need to have control of their box, though, just as RH controls their box. We can accept linuxconf as 'free' even though it is put into a copyright and exclusive box, and we could accept OPL docs, even if they are considered non-free when put down into the publisher's box, because the content is free. I know full well the situation is not perfect, but I wonder if there is a workable middle ground. t> but you also want to see Barnes and Noble being the only people t> with that up to date version of the book, right? Not at all. The LDP would have it long before the publishing process can run it through the mill and get it on to trucks. That is the point of it all: The LDP gets up to date docs to be distributed as freely as software, with the odd restriction that you cannot *print* the sourcecode as a single bundle of paper (which is, of course, absurd) t> Heh, most of the publishing world is, some publishers have the t> jump on the rest :) Let's hope so. The first ones to crack this will be moving into an uncharted realm, but then, so did RMS back in '94 >> Keep in mind that I can create an LSL-like RedHat distro, but >> if I were to copy the package, CD cover and printed materials >> wrapping Red Hat 6.0 and put it on the shelf of a local >> bookstore, I expect I would hear from Bob Young's lawyers. t> Of course, that is because the wrapping, the name, and the t> documentation supplied are not covered by free licenses. Exactly, and that is the parallel I'd like to draw with the bound and shipped book; they don't own the content, but they own the media. Someday I hope they will see that they can allow a competitor to take their digital content, wrap it with new covers &c and ship it, and the best package will win, but they aren't going to accept that in their first attempt any more than commercial shops accepted the GNU C compiler before the LGPL. t> I don't believe the LDP stands to gain much by having commercial t> publishers come in at the expense of abandoning one of the most t> important underlying tenets of the LDP, freedom of the works. I do. I just spent 4 hours trying to find the answer to a simple question. I want to do what any small office does and integrate my dialup, fax and voicemail. So what modem, produced since 1995, will work with mgetty+fax+voice? The docs tell me to buy a ZyXEL modem that has been out of production for years and now sells on eBay for $10, and they leave off on USR modems at the 28.8k's And it was from a commercial book that I learned to code a module, since the khg only confronted me with far too many threaded emails to sort out what is current from what is changed. This is not right. t> Secondly, you then need to invent a means of dealing with t> territorial squabbles. If I, or the LDP, is to be earning any t> money from the published works then I'll have them printed by t> the most successful publisher please. Absolutely, and that is where the responsibility goes to the publisher to ensure they also get a return on their investment. Their need for profit will anneal to optimum distribution channels (and remember that each has different strengths and weaknesses in these channels). You should see them jockey for display space on Barnes and Noble! I don't want this to be seen as an infringement or a criticism. I absolutely without reservation agree that totally free docs are the future and the only logical path to success. I was a fan of the floundering Project Gutenberg when it had 3 docs in the collection, I'm a personal friend of the McLuhan family (I have Eric talked into writing some essays under the OPL), I studied with America's most famous anarchist composer (John Cage). I have no doubts the world we want is inevitable. I am just curious about a common ground because I know MCP is not the only publisher who wants to do its business while giving a positive contribution to the existing Linux community, and I really don't like seeing watered down LDP docs being commissioned because the sponsoring publisher is saving the good bits for their "annotations" --- I mean, I like that they are paying LDP authors and giving them a chance to make money doing what they love doing, and I've signed a lot of authors for exactly this sort of work, but its the people who may not have access to those books who lose if they can't get the real information (in any form) without paying for it. Right now, the LDP is the raw material from which all the publishers are excavating ore, refining and coallating it, indexing and organizing it, and then selling it solely for the benefit of the authors and the publisher --- the information they list is not their invention, and although the authors are doing considerable work to sift the broken and outdated from the gems, I would be a lot happier if the end result was folded back to improve the LDP in some way; right now, and I include all of the publishers, we're being stripmined and outstripped. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Telecom Services : Internet Consulting : http://www.teledyn.com Linux Writers Workshop Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-hack/ "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." -- (Miles Davis) From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id QAA12907 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:23:29 +1000 Received: (qmail 21896 invoked by uid 38); 20 Sep 1999 06:23:22 -0000 Resent-Date: 20 Sep 1999 06:23:22 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: garym@maya.dyndns.org Sender: garym@mail.wccweb.com To: terry@albert.animats.net Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: [off topic] Re: Licensing issues References: <199909192112.HAA10280@albert.animats.net> From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Date: 20 Sep 1999 02:22:07 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: Gary Lawrence Murphy Organization: TeleDynamics --- the Art of Being There X-Url: http://www.teledyn.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/512 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org >>>>> "t" == terry writes: >> Let's be honest: The same is true of all 'official' Linux >> distributions. t> Of course they can. What you suggest is true for Linux t> distributions isn't true. The RedHat distribution has been t> picked up, tinkered with slightly, restamped with another t> another name and sold off. The GPL specifically allows that. Tinkered slightly may be the problem: I've heard RH is considering branding derived editions differently to distinguish them from the 'official' release, but this still misses my point. My point was that the *physical* distribution, the box, the text, the colour scheme and the logo cannot be duplicated or even simulated. The physical manifestion of their release is not free, only the aetherial content of the CD. t> ... "Official" SuSE is only "official" as far as t> SuSE is concerned, not the wider Linux community for example. With wider community considers the tux.org as an official distro, and you and I cannot take that, change it, and redistribute it as tux.org Linux. We can, of course, the licence allows it, but it would be foolish to do so. t> We are free at any time to go and produce a divergent kernel Yes, divergent. But we cannot directly change that distro, only create a new one. RH's changed kernel, for example, drives me nuts with every release, but I know it is a RH kernel, not a tux.org kernel. t> Now you have me confused. What is 'official linux' in your t> mind? I think you're confused. The linux that is produced from the Makefile in the Linux tarballs you would download from ftp.tux.org. If you prefer a different word, call it the 'reference kernel' but the effect is the same: All the others take that, change it, but release it clearly as their own. t> Hmm... I think in that case the publishers want to be t> commissioning their own documents then. I can understand a t> publishing company wanting to protect the value it adds to a t> document: indexing, editing, high quality illustration, t> typesetting, binding etc. but I don't see how it wins anything t> by wanting control of the document content. They don't want control of the content, or more precisely, I believe they will eventually see they don't need it and will benefit more if they let it go. They do need to have control of their box, though, just as RH controls their box. We can accept linuxconf as 'free' even though it is put into a copyright and exclusive box, and we could accept OPL docs, even if they are considered non-free when put down into the publisher's box, because the content is free. I know full well the situation is not perfect, but I wonder if there is a workable middle ground. t> but you also want to see Barnes and Noble being the only people t> with that up to date version of the book, right? Not at all. The LDP would have it long before the publishing process can run it through the mill and get it on to trucks. That is the point of it all: The LDP gets up to date docs to be distributed as freely as software, with the odd restriction that you cannot *print* the sourcecode as a single bundle of paper (which is, of course, absurd) t> Heh, most of the publishing world is, some publishers have the t> jump on the rest :) Let's hope so. The first ones to crack this will be moving into an uncharted realm, but then, so did RMS back in '94 >> Keep in mind that I can create an LSL-like RedHat distro, but >> if I were to copy the package, CD cover and printed materials >> wrapping Red Hat 6.0 and put it on the shelf of a local >> bookstore, I expect I would hear from Bob Young's lawyers. t> Of course, that is because the wrapping, the name, and the t> documentation supplied are not covered by free licenses. Exactly, and that is the parallel I'd like to draw with the bound and shipped book; they don't own the content, but they own the media. Someday I hope they will see that they can allow a competitor to take their digital content, wrap it with new covers &c and ship it, and the best package will win, but they aren't going to accept that in their first attempt any more than commercial shops accepted the GNU C compiler before the LGPL. t> I don't believe the LDP stands to gain much by having commercial t> publishers come in at the expense of abandoning one of the most t> important underlying tenets of the LDP, freedom of the works. I do. I just spent 4 hours trying to find the answer to a simple question. I want to do what any small office does and integrate my dialup, fax and voicemail. So what modem, produced since 1995, will work with mgetty+fax+voice? The docs tell me to buy a ZyXEL modem that has been out of production for years and now sells on eBay for $10, and they leave off on USR modems at the 28.8k's And it was from a commercial book that I learned to code a module, since the khg only confronted me with far too many threaded emails to sort out what is current from what is changed. This is not right. t> Secondly, you then need to invent a means of dealing with t> territorial squabbles. If I, or the LDP, is to be earning any t> money from the published works then I'll have them printed by t> the most successful publisher please. Absolutely, and that is where the responsibility goes to the publisher to ensure they also get a return on their investment. Their need for profit will anneal to optimum distribution channels (and remember that each has different strengths and weaknesses in these channels). You should see them jockey for display space on Barnes and Noble! I don't want this to be seen as an infringement or a criticism. I absolutely without reservation agree that totally free docs are the future and the only logical path to success. I was a fan of the floundering Project Gutenberg when it had 3 docs in the collection, I'm a personal friend of the McLuhan family (I have Eric talked into writing some essays under the OPL), I studied with America's most famous anarchist composer (John Cage). I have no doubts the world we want is inevitable. I am just curious about a common ground because I know MCP is not the only publisher who wants to do its business while giving a positive contribution to the existing Linux community, and I really don't like seeing watered down LDP docs being commissioned because the sponsoring publisher is saving the good bits for their "annotations" --- I mean, I like that they are paying LDP authors and giving them a chance to make money doing what they love doing, and I've signed a lot of authors for exactly this sort of work, but its the people who may not have access to those books who lose if they can't get the real information (in any form) without paying for it. Right now, the LDP is the raw material from which all the publishers are excavating ore, refining and coallating it, indexing and organizing it, and then selling it solely for the benefit of the authors and the publisher --- the information they list is not their invention, and although the authors are doing considerable work to sift the broken and outdated from the gems, I would be a lot happier if the end result was folded back to improve the LDP in some way; right now, and I include all of the publishers, we're being stripmined and outstripped. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Telecom Services : Internet Consulting : http://www.teledyn.com Linux Writers Workshop Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-hack/ "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." -- (Miles Davis) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (IDENT:root@lacrosse.corp.redhat.com [207.175.42.154]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id HAA17046 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:12:55 +1000 Received: from chef.meridian.redhat.com (IDENT:root@chef.meridian.redhat.com [207.175.42.11]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA30603; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:12:27 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (IDENT:djb@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chef.meridian.redhat.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA18118; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:12:34 -0400 Message-Id: <199909202112.RAA18118@chef.meridian.redhat.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: terry@albert.animats.net cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Licensing issues In-reply-to: <199909202108.HAA17013@albert.animats.net> from terry@albert.animats.net on Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:08:26 +1000. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:12:34 -0400 From: Donnie Barnes > > I don't care to go into the debate on why we need to avoid this *again*. > > Suffice it to say that documentation IS NOT software. Leave people the > > ability to choose and let the LDP have the most useful documentation it > > can reasonably have. > > Unmodifiable documents are uneditable/untransformable/untypesettable > documents. Documents must be modifiable if they are to published in any > form other than that which the author produces. Sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm talking about content modification, period. --Donnie -- Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com djb@donniebarnes.com "Bah." Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. V. Bats, when dipped in batter and deep fried, still taste pretty bad. From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA17052 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:13:01 +1000 Received: (qmail 21756 invoked by uid 38); 20 Sep 1999 21:12:49 -0000 Resent-Date: 20 Sep 1999 21:12:49 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: djb@redhat.com Message-Id: <199909202112.RAA18118@chef.meridian.redhat.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: terry@albert.animats.net cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Licensing issues In-reply-to: <199909202108.HAA17013@albert.animats.net> from terry@albert.animats.net on Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:08:26 +1000. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:12:34 -0400 From: Donnie Barnes Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/518 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > > I don't care to go into the debate on why we need to avoid this *again*. > > Suffice it to say that documentation IS NOT software. Leave people the > > ability to choose and let the LDP have the most useful documentation it > > can reasonably have. > > Unmodifiable documents are uneditable/untransformable/untypesettable > documents. Documents must be modifiable if they are to published in any > form other than that which the author produces. Sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm talking about content modification, period. --Donnie -- Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com djb@donniebarnes.com "Bah." Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. V. Bats, when dipped in batter and deep fried, still taste pretty bad. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from maya.dyndns.org (IDENT:root@ts1-27.owns.interhop.net [165.154.232.91]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id HAA17114 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:24:28 +1000 Received: (from garym@localhost) by maya.dyndns.org (8.9.3/8.9.1/hvv-redhat) id OAA20279; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:24:22 -0700 Sender: garym@mail.wccweb.com To: terry@albert.animats.net Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: [off topic] Re: Licensing issues References: <199909202101.HAA16947@albert.animats.net> From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Date: 20 Sep 1999 17:24:21 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: Gary Lawrence Murphy Organization: TeleDynamics --- the Art of Being There X-Url: http://www.teledyn.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>>>> "t" == terry writes: t> Stallman didn't get the GNU project kicking along by being t> compromising on licensing freedom. Then why did we have so many flame wars over the LGPL? -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Telecom Services : Internet Consulting : http://www.teledyn.com Linux Writers Workshop Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-hack/ "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." -- (Miles Davis) From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA17122 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:24:54 +1000 Received: (qmail 669 invoked by uid 38); 20 Sep 1999 21:24:43 -0000 Resent-Date: 20 Sep 1999 21:24:43 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: garym@maya.dyndns.org Sender: garym@mail.wccweb.com To: terry@albert.animats.net Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: [off topic] Re: Licensing issues References: <199909202101.HAA16947@albert.animats.net> From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Date: 20 Sep 1999 17:24:21 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: Gary Lawrence Murphy Organization: TeleDynamics --- the Art of Being There X-Url: http://www.teledyn.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <_6aZrC.A.UK.bYq53@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/519 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org >>>>> "t" == terry writes: t> Stallman didn't get the GNU project kicking along by being t> compromising on licensing freedom. Then why did we have so many flame wars over the LGPL? -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Telecom Services : Internet Consulting : http://www.teledyn.com Linux Writers Workshop Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-hack/ "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." -- (Miles Davis) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from maya.dyndns.org (IDENT:root@ts1-45.owns.interhop.net [165.154.232.109]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id BAA21947 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 01:11:20 +1000 Received: (from garym@localhost) by maya.dyndns.org (8.9.3/8.9.1/hvv-redhat) id IAA24685; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:10:08 -0700 Sender: garym@mail.wccweb.com To: Terry Dawson Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: [off topic] Re: Licensing issues References: <199909202101.HAA16947@albert.animats.net> <19990921102713.C17878@albert.animats.net> From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Date: 21 Sep 1999 11:10:08 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: Gary Lawrence Murphy Organization: TeleDynamics --- the Art of Being There X-Url: http://www.teledyn.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>>>> "T" == Terry Dawson writes: T> There is a big difference between GPL->LGPL and Open T> Documents->Exclusive publishing deals. They're in completely T> different leagues. The GPL->LGPL was a move to greater freedom T> at the cost of exclusivity. Not quite. It was a move to less freedom to accomodate exclusivity. The LGPL was required to allow commercial vendors to use the then-GPL'd libc in their own non-free projects. It is less freedom because the GPL was intended to make all derived works also bend to the GPL (which is another case where the GPL will not work for LDP docs) and had to give up this "freedom requirement" to accomodate commercial acceptance. T> What is being proposed works in completely the opposite T> direction, it is a move to restrict the publishing of documents T> by introducing exclusivity. But only the restriction on book-publishing, while opening up the free distribution of all material for all other avenues. Someone alluded to a publisher who is donating their stuff into the LDP without restrictions. I'm curious because the only publishers I know who go anywhere near that are ORA and Coriolis, and the former has not donated any complete documents (that I know of), and the latter is only donating bare essentials, keeping the good stuff for their 'annotations'. I'm curious. Which publisher is donating complete works? -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Telecom Services : Internet Consulting : http://www.teledyn.com Linux Writers Workshop Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-hack/ "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." -- (Miles Davis) From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id BAA21968 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 01:15:09 +1000 Received: (qmail 20027 invoked by uid 38); 21 Sep 1999 15:12:08 -0000 Resent-Date: 21 Sep 1999 15:12:08 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: garym@maya.dyndns.org Sender: garym@mail.wccweb.com To: Terry Dawson Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: [off topic] Re: Licensing issues References: <199909202101.HAA16947@albert.animats.net> <19990921102713.C17878@albert.animats.net> From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Date: 21 Sep 1999 11:10:08 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: Gary Lawrence Murphy Organization: TeleDynamics --- the Art of Being There X-Url: http://www.teledyn.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <4D-L6C.A.d4E.HB653@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/528 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org >>>>> "T" == Terry Dawson writes: T> There is a big difference between GPL->LGPL and Open T> Documents->Exclusive publishing deals. They're in completely T> different leagues. The GPL->LGPL was a move to greater freedom T> at the cost of exclusivity. Not quite. It was a move to less freedom to accomodate exclusivity. The LGPL was required to allow commercial vendors to use the then-GPL'd libc in their own non-free projects. It is less freedom because the GPL was intended to make all derived works also bend to the GPL (which is another case where the GPL will not work for LDP docs) and had to give up this "freedom requirement" to accomodate commercial acceptance. T> What is being proposed works in completely the opposite T> direction, it is a move to restrict the publishing of documents T> by introducing exclusivity. But only the restriction on book-publishing, while opening up the free distribution of all material for all other avenues. Someone alluded to a publisher who is donating their stuff into the LDP without restrictions. I'm curious because the only publishers I know who go anywhere near that are ORA and Coriolis, and the former has not donated any complete documents (that I know of), and the latter is only donating bare essentials, keeping the good stuff for their 'annotations'. I'm curious. Which publisher is donating complete works? -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Telecom Services : Internet Consulting : http://www.teledyn.com Linux Writers Workshop Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-hack/ "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." -- (Miles Davis) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from maya.dyndns.org (IDENT:root@ts1-2.owns.interhop.net [165.154.232.66]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id PAA26107 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:52:47 +1000 Received: (from garym@localhost) by maya.dyndns.org (8.9.3/8.9.1/hvv-redhat) id WAA06218; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:51:58 -0700 Sender: garym@mail.wccweb.com To: Terry Dawson Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: [off topic] Re: Licensing issues References: <199909202101.HAA16947@albert.animats.net> <19990921102713.C17878@albert.animats.net> <19990922085238.B24076@albert.animats.net> From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Date: 22 Sep 1999 01:51:57 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: Gary Lawrence Murphy Organization: TeleDynamics --- the Art of Being There X-Url: http://www.teledyn.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>>>> "T" == Terry Dawson writes: T> It was a move to more freedom, the only change was that it T> allowed a use that wasn't allowed before. I don't see how any T> reasonable description of freedom, or more or less suggests T> that is a restriction of freedom. The LGPL removed all those 'derived' works from being bound by the GPL. Thus, it had the result of encouraging developers to work on non-free software. So in this sense, no, it did not restrict freedoms, it just encouraged less free software development. At least, that was the arguement at the time. In retrospect, GCC did not become the industrial standard C compiler until _after_ the LGPL. Similarly, Linux distros who include non-free software are giving the message that non-free is required to complete the picture, and also removing the need to develop good free software. I don't entirely agree with this scenario, but this is my reading of the RMS papers on gnu.org and our correspondence. His argument has merit, but I don't think it is practical as dogma even when there are no viable free alternatives. The same is true for docs. Non or partially free licences are a transitional stage. T> The GPL will and does work for documents in exactly the same T> way. If you want to take portions of any of my documents and T> combine them with portions of other documents the other T> documents have to have licenses that are GPL compatible. If software is derived from GPL software, that software must be GPL and while it can be more free, it cannot be less free. If, on the other hand, research for a book is based on LDP documents and makes copious quotes, correcting commentary and grammar, and then making logical references to it to support a new point not found in the original (ie function call equivalents, corrected functional definitions, and new higher-level functions), then, by the GPL, can you sell that book? If a study course (an application) is based on a document, and the professor likewise corrects and extends the material, can you charge a fee for that course under the GPL? If Eric Raymond speaks to a room full of engineers using modified ideas of the GPL licenced documents, can he charge for the appearance? Can he charge for a book containing his talk? The whole notion of "derived/extended" and mere use (ie LGPL) in natural language is very, very murky. What if someone were to take an LDP document and transform it into a politically slanted work in conflict with the aims of the LDP, say, for example, to change it to highlight the shortcomings of some core Linux system such as KPPP? It could become a Microsoft sales tool. Because software has no 'implied' meanings or grades of truth, such a derived work could be attributed to the LDP under the GPL. For the same reason Salvador Dali threw a bathtub through Macy's window, authors seek control over changes of content, and some control over uses, and these are issues which do not occur in software (where the only measure of correctness is "bug-free") >> But only the restriction on book-publishing, while opening up >> the free distribution of all material for all other avenues. T> They're already open. There is no gain there. I see this as the first problem of the LDP: How do we stay current? Docs are not open if there are none. Unlike software, we don't have a pressing need for correct docs; an engineer is not stopped in their tracks if the SMP-Howto is not correct, but they are stopped if the SMP implementation is buggy. There is an itch to drive the creation of software because the use of that software can be translated directly into a business model to pay for the investment. There is no such carrot on a stick for documents: Far more than software patches, LDP docs are a total selfless gift from the author. Some of my own (non-Linux) documents (now published under the OPL) were written under contract for other purposes (teaching of courses, whitepapers for clients) and thus, because I had recouped the cost of producting these papers, I had no problems donating them for any use whatsoever. I was tickled pink when I learned two universities had printed them as handouts for webdesign and internet courses. The LDP does get some docs this way, from people like RedHat and other engineers who had to document certain systems for their design teams (thus recouping costs) but the vast majority of our Howtos are just friendly gifts and anecdotal personal experiences. What I want is a model whereby the people who do have an itch to scratch by having good docs (the publishers) can fold all or parts of that effort back into the LDP for the benefit of those who cannot afford or otherwise have no access to the books (or even just so they can properly evaluate a book) T> The donating whole works thing is a whole different subject. If T> a publisher, as copyright holder of a work, wants to provide T> their work to the LDP with a license that allows free online T> publishing but restricted paper publishing then that is T> entirely their perogative. I would welcome that, but I would T> oppose any move to attempt to make any other LDP documents T> conform to that style of license. Yes, exactly. Perhaps we have been talking about the same thing from the same side but using different words. I am not advocating slapping an OPL Option-B on _all_ LDP documents. When I mentioned corporate adoption of documents, I meant *big* documents, those of whole book proportions. If, say, ORA were to adopt the SAG and make it into a first class book, cool diagrams, accomodating all the major distros, and their rule was they would let us ship it out on the web, ftp and CDROM but we are prevented from printing, binding and marketing it (all three together; just printing for person or course-study use is still allowed), then is there a problem? T> The LDP has to make a decision as to what constitutes an T> acceptable document for inclusion within its charter. Yes, exactly. Let me be more direct: I am working with a dozen authors to create what I see as the missing functional specifications document for the Linux kernel. I nagged and nagged and nagged MCP until they agreed to let me publish under OPL Option-B, but now I am worried this will be for naught, and since the LDP may not accept the document --- I am also finding many very good authors reluctant to participate for fear of LDP reprisals. T> I think all you're really trying to say is that you believe the T> LDP should leave enough flexibility in its minimum licensing T> standards to accomodate the model you describe. Yes. If Lucent wants to donate a binary kernel module for their winmodem, do we refuse it? It's a similar situation only they are not saying we cannot modify the content to improve it, only that they are the official maintainer until they say otherwise (which is true of all LDP submissions) and that they are restricting the document from being used against them in the marketplace. I believe the LDP should encourage the free flow of information and accomodate Linux education. When a sprout meets a stone, that is only one of many degrees of freedom lost, and I see the interim solution of New Riders, ORA, Sams, Coriolis and others using Option-B to protect their investment as only the loss of one degree out of many. I believe this clause only exists to frustrate other publishers, ie, like the reason Sun and HP &c endorsed open source in X11: To protect them against their own kind. It does not seem likely to me that your typical LDP users would *want* to snarf an entire book and market it in direct competition with an ORA edition. I admit it is a loss of a single freedom, but it doesn't seem to me to be a freedom anyone would miss. T> Let me ask you a question. It's fairly obvious what the T> advantages are to the publisher in having a document branded an T> official LDP work and having exclusive publishing rights, but T> what's in it for the LDP or the greater Linux community to have T> a document branded an official LDP document but with T> restrictions placed on its publishing in physical form? I see several advantages for the LDP, and huge advantages to the Linux community. Of course, I tend to see lots of things and that is probably due to all those hundreds of acid hits in my youth. An immediate advantage is having professionally crafted and current material in our body of work. When someone searches the LDP, they find these documents, and hopefully find the answer to their question. In the Windows world, the 'Knowledge Base' provides a one-stop shop for end-user information (ie, if the KB doesn't have it, no one will, even though the latter condition is the most common ;) Down the road, when all docs are XML and we have the tools to deal with it, one doc can lead to other related docs and even small fragments can be instantly updated across the board --- it will become unthinkable that a question about Linux cannot be answered by the LDP. Another advantage is in having readable docs. There are notable exceptions, but as a rule, our current opus is very badly written and naively organized ... but we never ever complain because they are gifts and we can usually figure out what they meant to say. Not that books are guaranteed to be better ;) but they do have teams of people whose full-time profession is to ensure documents are accurate and readable, ie tech reviewers, language reviewers, translators ... all of their skills are in producing documentation. We can leverage those skills for the benefit of the Linux community. The long term advantage is relationship building. If we can bind together all the publishers such that they lose their fear of each other and can work together, we can eventually apply their talents to all of the LDP docs, and without the Option B restriction because they will see the integrity of our collection as their best resource --- right now, the LDP is what sells every publisher's books precisely because of its obtuseness. T> The ability to read the document online but not to be able to T> print it? Option-B only removes the right to bind it into a book for resale. That is very different from banning all printouts. OPL allows a teacher to print out sections for use in a course, or to include it on RH, LSL or Infomagic CDs, or to ship it to other mirror sites. Option B is only to protect them from having their investment scooped and leveraged against them in the marketplace by other publishers. T> It seems like a fairly one-sided arrangement to me. Let me play Devil's Advocate: You could just as well say publishers are giving away everything and getting nothing they couldn't already take for free. I was greeted with polite shock when I contacted the LDP to tell them we were including an entire doc in one of our books; yes, I'd read and understood the licence, but it seemed to me the polite thing to do. All the LDP really offers is a brand name, and that name can be replaced by another (anyone remember Mosaic? Simtel? Decwrl?) And some, like ORA, already have a very good name. Why should they bother with the LDP? Why burn their profits just so the LDP can have some nice timely doc updates? Why should Corliolis fund revisions for your benefit? Each publisher probably puts out more lines of text per year than the entire LDP. I can't speak for any of them, but I can relay the exact words of the senior publisher for the Waite Group: "I could publish 'cooking with Linux and it would sell', but I don't want to do that. I want to do it right" It is the cause of righteousness, the infectious community-support aspect of open source that attracts them --- that they are attracted to the LDP is just a lucky co-incidence for us (if we choose to seize it). They see that they take so much from the community, they see that this community does not even require them to say 'thanks' and they want to give something back; they look to the LDP as their closest brethren because we are all in the same line of work. Are they so different from the rest of us? It all comes back to the mandate of the LDP. If the mission of the LDP is to foster only 100% free documentation, then no, there is no advantage to any such partnership, and publishers and the LDP must always be in direct competition with each other. If, on the other hand, the LDP mission is to foster Linux education, then I believe we have as much to gain as the Kernel had to gain from corporate support from SGI and Compaq: We gain the mutually beneficial pooling of our knowledge with the technical publishing and document management skills we are missing, all working together to help make the LDP into an even better resource for the Linux community. Please keep in mind that I am not a publisher, nor do I speak for one. I don't even pretend to be one on TV. My vision of LDP/corporate cooperation makes sense to me only under the banner of serving the Linux user community interests; you only need to watch a day's worth of comp.os.linux.setup to see how we fail to provide what the community needs. I still may be completely off the wall and the whole notion of a master Linux documentation project may not be feasible, practical, or even desirable, to either publishers or the LDP. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Telecom Services : Internet Consulting : http://www.teledyn.com Linux Writers Workshop Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-hack/ "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." -- (Miles Davis) From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id PAA26115 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:53:16 +1000 Received: (qmail 13514 invoked by uid 38); 22 Sep 1999 05:53:05 -0000 Resent-Date: 22 Sep 1999 05:53:05 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: garym@maya.dyndns.org Sender: garym@mail.wccweb.com To: Terry Dawson Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: [off topic] Re: Licensing issues References: <199909202101.HAA16947@albert.animats.net> <19990921102713.C17878@albert.animats.net> <19990922085238.B24076@albert.animats.net> From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Date: 22 Sep 1999 01:51:57 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: Gary Lawrence Murphy Organization: TeleDynamics --- the Art of Being There X-Url: http://www.teledyn.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/537 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org >>>>> "T" == Terry Dawson writes: T> It was a move to more freedom, the only change was that it T> allowed a use that wasn't allowed before. I don't see how any T> reasonable description of freedom, or more or less suggests T> that is a restriction of freedom. The LGPL removed all those 'derived' works from being bound by the GPL. Thus, it had the result of encouraging developers to work on non-free software. So in this sense, no, it did not restrict freedoms, it just encouraged less free software development. At least, that was the arguement at the time. In retrospect, GCC did not become the industrial standard C compiler until _after_ the LGPL. Similarly, Linux distros who include non-free software are giving the message that non-free is required to complete the picture, and also removing the need to develop good free software. I don't entirely agree with this scenario, but this is my reading of the RMS papers on gnu.org and our correspondence. His argument has merit, but I don't think it is practical as dogma even when there are no viable free alternatives. The same is true for docs. Non or partially free licences are a transitional stage. T> The GPL will and does work for documents in exactly the same T> way. If you want to take portions of any of my documents and T> combine them with portions of other documents the other T> documents have to have licenses that are GPL compatible. If software is derived from GPL software, that software must be GPL and while it can be more free, it cannot be less free. If, on the other hand, research for a book is based on LDP documents and makes copious quotes, correcting commentary and grammar, and then making logical references to it to support a new point not found in the original (ie function call equivalents, corrected functional definitions, and new higher-level functions), then, by the GPL, can you sell that book? If a study course (an application) is based on a document, and the professor likewise corrects and extends the material, can you charge a fee for that course under the GPL? If Eric Raymond speaks to a room full of engineers using modified ideas of the GPL licenced documents, can he charge for the appearance? Can he charge for a book containing his talk? The whole notion of "derived/extended" and mere use (ie LGPL) in natural language is very, very murky. What if someone were to take an LDP document and transform it into a politically slanted work in conflict with the aims of the LDP, say, for example, to change it to highlight the shortcomings of some core Linux system such as KPPP? It could become a Microsoft sales tool. Because software has no 'implied' meanings or grades of truth, such a derived work could be attributed to the LDP under the GPL. For the same reason Salvador Dali threw a bathtub through Macy's window, authors seek control over changes of content, and some control over uses, and these are issues which do not occur in software (where the only measure of correctness is "bug-free") >> But only the restriction on book-publishing, while opening up >> the free distribution of all material for all other avenues. T> They're already open. There is no gain there. I see this as the first problem of the LDP: How do we stay current? Docs are not open if there are none. Unlike software, we don't have a pressing need for correct docs; an engineer is not stopped in their tracks if the SMP-Howto is not correct, but they are stopped if the SMP implementation is buggy. There is an itch to drive the creation of software because the use of that software can be translated directly into a business model to pay for the investment. There is no such carrot on a stick for documents: Far more than software patches, LDP docs are a total selfless gift from the author. Some of my own (non-Linux) documents (now published under the OPL) were written under contract for other purposes (teaching of courses, whitepapers for clients) and thus, because I had recouped the cost of producting these papers, I had no problems donating them for any use whatsoever. I was tickled pink when I learned two universities had printed them as handouts for webdesign and internet courses. The LDP does get some docs this way, from people like RedHat and other engineers who had to document certain systems for their design teams (thus recouping costs) but the vast majority of our Howtos are just friendly gifts and anecdotal personal experiences. What I want is a model whereby the people who do have an itch to scratch by having good docs (the publishers) can fold all or parts of that effort back into the LDP for the benefit of those who cannot afford or otherwise have no access to the books (or even just so they can properly evaluate a book) T> The donating whole works thing is a whole different subject. If T> a publisher, as copyright holder of a work, wants to provide T> their work to the LDP with a license that allows free online T> publishing but restricted paper publishing then that is T> entirely their perogative. I would welcome that, but I would T> oppose any move to attempt to make any other LDP documents T> conform to that style of license. Yes, exactly. Perhaps we have been talking about the same thing from the same side but using different words. I am not advocating slapping an OPL Option-B on _all_ LDP documents. When I mentioned corporate adoption of documents, I meant *big* documents, those of whole book proportions. If, say, ORA were to adopt the SAG and make it into a first class book, cool diagrams, accomodating all the major distros, and their rule was they would let us ship it out on the web, ftp and CDROM but we are prevented from printing, binding and marketing it (all three together; just printing for person or course-study use is still allowed), then is there a problem? T> The LDP has to make a decision as to what constitutes an T> acceptable document for inclusion within its charter. Yes, exactly. Let me be more direct: I am working with a dozen authors to create what I see as the missing functional specifications document for the Linux kernel. I nagged and nagged and nagged MCP until they agreed to let me publish under OPL Option-B, but now I am worried this will be for naught, and since the LDP may not accept the document --- I am also finding many very good authors reluctant to participate for fear of LDP reprisals. T> I think all you're really trying to say is that you believe the T> LDP should leave enough flexibility in its minimum licensing T> standards to accomodate the model you describe. Yes. If Lucent wants to donate a binary kernel module for their winmodem, do we refuse it? It's a similar situation only they are not saying we cannot modify the content to improve it, only that they are the official maintainer until they say otherwise (which is true of all LDP submissions) and that they are restricting the document from being used against them in the marketplace. I believe the LDP should encourage the free flow of information and accomodate Linux education. When a sprout meets a stone, that is only one of many degrees of freedom lost, and I see the interim solution of New Riders, ORA, Sams, Coriolis and others using Option-B to protect their investment as only the loss of one degree out of many. I believe this clause only exists to frustrate other publishers, ie, like the reason Sun and HP &c endorsed open source in X11: To protect them against their own kind. It does not seem likely to me that your typical LDP users would *want* to snarf an entire book and market it in direct competition with an ORA edition. I admit it is a loss of a single freedom, but it doesn't seem to me to be a freedom anyone would miss. T> Let me ask you a question. It's fairly obvious what the T> advantages are to the publisher in having a document branded an T> official LDP work and having exclusive publishing rights, but T> what's in it for the LDP or the greater Linux community to have T> a document branded an official LDP document but with T> restrictions placed on its publishing in physical form? I see several advantages for the LDP, and huge advantages to the Linux community. Of course, I tend to see lots of things and that is probably due to all those hundreds of acid hits in my youth. An immediate advantage is having professionally crafted and current material in our body of work. When someone searches the LDP, they find these documents, and hopefully find the answer to their question. In the Windows world, the 'Knowledge Base' provides a one-stop shop for end-user information (ie, if the KB doesn't have it, no one will, even though the latter condition is the most common ;) Down the road, when all docs are XML and we have the tools to deal with it, one doc can lead to other related docs and even small fragments can be instantly updated across the board --- it will become unthinkable that a question about Linux cannot be answered by the LDP. Another advantage is in having readable docs. There are notable exceptions, but as a rule, our current opus is very badly written and naively organized ... but we never ever complain because they are gifts and we can usually figure out what they meant to say. Not that books are guaranteed to be better ;) but they do have teams of people whose full-time profession is to ensure documents are accurate and readable, ie tech reviewers, language reviewers, translators ... all of their skills are in producing documentation. We can leverage those skills for the benefit of the Linux community. The long term advantage is relationship building. If we can bind together all the publishers such that they lose their fear of each other and can work together, we can eventually apply their talents to all of the LDP docs, and without the Option B restriction because they will see the integrity of our collection as their best resource --- right now, the LDP is what sells every publisher's books precisely because of its obtuseness. T> The ability to read the document online but not to be able to T> print it? Option-B only removes the right to bind it into a book for resale. That is very different from banning all printouts. OPL allows a teacher to print out sections for use in a course, or to include it on RH, LSL or Infomagic CDs, or to ship it to other mirror sites. Option B is only to protect them from having their investment scooped and leveraged against them in the marketplace by other publishers. T> It seems like a fairly one-sided arrangement to me. Let me play Devil's Advocate: You could just as well say publishers are giving away everything and getting nothing they couldn't already take for free. I was greeted with polite shock when I contacted the LDP to tell them we were including an entire doc in one of our books; yes, I'd read and understood the licence, but it seemed to me the polite thing to do. All the LDP really offers is a brand name, and that name can be replaced by another (anyone remember Mosaic? Simtel? Decwrl?) And some, like ORA, already have a very good name. Why should they bother with the LDP? Why burn their profits just so the LDP can have some nice timely doc updates? Why should Corliolis fund revisions for your benefit? Each publisher probably puts out more lines of text per year than the entire LDP. I can't speak for any of them, but I can relay the exact words of the senior publisher for the Waite Group: "I could publish 'cooking with Linux and it would sell', but I don't want to do that. I want to do it right" It is the cause of righteousness, the infectious community-support aspect of open source that attracts them --- that they are attracted to the LDP is just a lucky co-incidence for us (if we choose to seize it). They see that they take so much from the community, they see that this community does not even require them to say 'thanks' and they want to give something back; they look to the LDP as their closest brethren because we are all in the same line of work. Are they so different from the rest of us? It all comes back to the mandate of the LDP. If the mission of the LDP is to foster only 100% free documentation, then no, there is no advantage to any such partnership, and publishers and the LDP must always be in direct competition with each other. If, on the other hand, the LDP mission is to foster Linux education, then I believe we have as much to gain as the Kernel had to gain from corporate support from SGI and Compaq: We gain the mutually beneficial pooling of our knowledge with the technical publishing and document management skills we are missing, all working together to help make the LDP into an even better resource for the Linux community. Please keep in mind that I am not a publisher, nor do I speak for one. I don't even pretend to be one on TV. My vision of LDP/corporate cooperation makes sense to me only under the banner of serving the Linux user community interests; you only need to watch a day's worth of comp.os.linux.setup to see how we fail to provide what the community needs. I still may be completely off the wall and the whole notion of a master Linux documentation project may not be feasible, practical, or even desirable, to either publishers or the LDP. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Telecom Services : Internet Consulting : http://www.teledyn.com Linux Writers Workshop Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-hack/ "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." -- (Miles Davis) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from smtp2.free.fr (root@smtp2.free.fr [212.27.32.6]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id HAA30249 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 07:03:26 +1000 Received: from victis.oeil.qc.ca (toulouse-59-241.dial.proxad.net [212.27.59.241]) by smtp2.free.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id XAA08797; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 23:03:12 +0200 Received: from guylhem by victis.oeil.qc.ca with local (Exim 3.02 #3) id 11Tk5h-0000Fy-00; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:57:37 +0200 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:57:37 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Terry Dawson Cc: Gary Lawrence Murphy , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: [off topic] Re: Licensing issues Message-ID: <19990922125737.A965@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <199909202101.HAA16947@albert.animats.net> <19990921102713.C17878@albert.animats.net> <19990922085238.B24076@albert.animats.net> <19990922172230.A26291@albert.animats.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="/04w6evG8XlLl3ft"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <19990922172230.A26291@albert.animats.net>; from Terry Dawson on Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 05:22:30PM +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 --/04w6evG8XlLl3ft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 05:22:30PM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote: > I believe the LDP could better meet the needs of the community by > implementing some structure, standards and process. It has always had > some of those things, but I don't believe they've kept up with > community expectations. The LDP has failed to evolve. We're trying to. BTW, ldp-submit mailing list is working now, could some QC volunteers subscribe (mail ldp-submit-request) to start checking submitted documents ? Tim, I suggest you now only allow documents submitted to ldp-submit (forward to ldp-submit the docs you receive directly) > As I somewhat cynically suggested in another mail message, the LDP does n= ot > have any sort of agreed decision making process. We can talk and talk and= talk > but nothing will happen until people do things and they're either quietly > accepted or they produce debate. Please make clear suggestions we'll discuss and, if we agree, adopt. For the licensing problems you have been talking about, I now strongly believe the DGPL as a single license could fix all that. I'm not saying we should change the license of each current document, but we should consider accepting only DGPL'ed documents in the future. Why ? The DGPL has no major flaw, has been written especially for the documentation, and it can change if we request it. It's the license that best fit LDP needs in all the licenses I've read so far : it protects the document, the author, and is designed for our current problems (collaboration with commercial printers, merging, forking versions...) > That's how it works isn't it? I don't want to impose anything, but if there's too much disagreements, or discussions that leads to nothing, I'm sorry but I will have to decide what I think is the best solution for the LDP. It's not an easy task, but we *need* some changes. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --/04w6evG8XlLl3ft Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN+i2Id+QeWug/qfFAQGvYwP5AVccOl2Lx+KLRcEJtISKg7fh9XbcP2vA Ki8PpNpnkGVydkYm8daebJ27h37E+scGvCq/U/vyY3jBXAZdr5gDGHxEgTPE9D8t YSCH3mZ3UyEXPsMfZEHaVRPeLjIfRtMpXHUbtUcLdu4+dOTS+vrOTxgDkrJlnhmp QpTXf1Wrlh8= =Royo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/04w6evG8XlLl3ft-- From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA30304 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 07:15:35 +1000 Received: (qmail 31375 invoked by uid 38); 22 Sep 1999 21:11:46 -0000 Resent-Date: 22 Sep 1999 21:11:45 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:57:37 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Terry Dawson Cc: Gary Lawrence Murphy , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: [off topic] Re: Licensing issues Message-ID: <19990922125737.A965@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <199909202101.HAA16947@albert.animats.net> <19990921102713.C17878@albert.animats.net> <19990922085238.B24076@albert.animats.net> <19990922172230.A26291@albert.animats.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="/04w6evG8XlLl3ft"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <19990922172230.A26291@albert.animats.net>; from Terry Dawson on Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 05:22:30PM +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/540 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --/04w6evG8XlLl3ft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 05:22:30PM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote: > I believe the LDP could better meet the needs of the community by > implementing some structure, standards and process. It has always had > some of those things, but I don't believe they've kept up with > community expectations. The LDP has failed to evolve. We're trying to. BTW, ldp-submit mailing list is working now, could some QC volunteers subscribe (mail ldp-submit-request) to start checking submitted documents ? Tim, I suggest you now only allow documents submitted to ldp-submit (forward to ldp-submit the docs you receive directly) > As I somewhat cynically suggested in another mail message, the LDP does n= ot > have any sort of agreed decision making process. We can talk and talk and= talk > but nothing will happen until people do things and they're either quietly > accepted or they produce debate. Please make clear suggestions we'll discuss and, if we agree, adopt. For the licensing problems you have been talking about, I now strongly believe the DGPL as a single license could fix all that. I'm not saying we should change the license of each current document, but we should consider accepting only DGPL'ed documents in the future. Why ? The DGPL has no major flaw, has been written especially for the documentation, and it can change if we request it. It's the license that best fit LDP needs in all the licenses I've read so far : it protects the document, the author, and is designed for our current problems (collaboration with commercial printers, merging, forking versions...) > That's how it works isn't it? I don't want to impose anything, but if there's too much disagreements, or discussions that leads to nothing, I'm sorry but I will have to decide what I think is the best solution for the LDP. It's not an easy task, but we *need* some changes. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --/04w6evG8XlLl3ft Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN+i2Id+QeWug/qfFAQGvYwP5AVccOl2Lx+KLRcEJtISKg7fh9XbcP2vA Ki8PpNpnkGVydkYm8daebJ27h37E+scGvCq/U/vyY3jBXAZdr5gDGHxEgTPE9D8t YSCH3mZ3UyEXPsMfZEHaVRPeLjIfRtMpXHUbtUcLdu4+dOTS+vrOTxgDkrJlnhmp QpTXf1Wrlh8= =Royo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/04w6evG8XlLl3ft-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from maya.dyndns.org (IDENT:root@ts1-38.owns.interhop.net [165.154.232.102]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id PAA32510 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:05:50 +1000 Received: (from garym@localhost) by maya.dyndns.org (8.9.3/8.9.1/hvv-redhat) id WAA11351; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 22:05:33 -0700 Sender: garym@mail.wccweb.com To: Terry Dawson Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: [off topic] Re: Licensing issues References: <199909202101.HAA16947@albert.animats.net> <19990921102713.C17878@albert.animats.net> <19990922085238.B24076@albert.animats.net> <19990922172230.A26291@albert.animats.net> From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Date: 23 Sep 1999 01:05:33 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: Gary Lawrence Murphy Organization: TeleDynamics --- the Art of Being There X-Url: http://www.teledyn.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>>>> "T" == Terry Dawson writes: T> The GPL doesn't talk about cost in a dollar sense. Of course T> you can sell those things. The question should be: Should those T> derived works be covered by GPL? It's the "2B or not 2B" :) meaning of course, paragraph 2b of the GPL (1991) T> To be GPL compliant it would have to also contain obvious T> notice that you've modified the work. True, but the work retains its lineage. If I modify XBill, it has a different face, but the logic is still just the logic. In words, I can change the logic dramatically with the insertion of just a few words, and it still 'works' >> I see this as the first problem of the LDP: How do we stay >> current? T> User demand, how do book publishers stay current? Then visit comp.os.linux.setup. The demand is huge. They are screaming for new docs. What modem *do* I use for mgetty? Don't tell me the XyZel, because it has long since ceased to exist. Publishers meet the demand. The 185th most popular book in all of Amazon last month was a Linux book. The author made several thousand dollars per month basically just doing what the LDP should do: Teach the basics of installing and running a Linux machine. T> Bah, I don't know how many or of what sort of HOWTO you've T> maintained, but I can assure you part of the reason I handed T> mine off to other people was because the work load was just too T> high, not with keeping the document up to date, but with T> responding to questions that people had of things they didn't T> understand, or that I'd gotten wrong, or with suggestions for T> things that should be included. Exactly. Now, what if you were being paid to fix it, and someone else first filtered out the "I didn't understand" comments. This is what happens with publishers. We finish a book and no sooner does it get to the bookstores when the publisher calls back for a revision. The royalties on such a book can easily be several thousand dollars per month. THe author of the 1989 "Unix Primer" still gets a nice $400 cheque every single month. It helps take the sting out of the bother. Now, if your howto was software, you'd want your copy to perform better, so if someon sent you a patch to improve the algorithm, you'd use it in a flash. Because your howto was a gift, you gave it and then had to hand it off because it no longer served any purpose for you but bother. T> There is a healthy community of LDP consumers out there who do T> actively contribute to the accuracy and updating of documents. And they are to be commended! I have also hired several to work on book projects because I want to see some of those royalty dollars going to reinforce their very generous behaviour. T> I don't believe that either. We all write/maintain documents T> for a variety of reasons. My prime motivation was to appease a T> conscience upset at not being skilled/positioned to contribute That just renames the same thing. You gave a gift. You didn't do it for yourself and your clients didn't pay for it. You paid for it and gave it as a gift. Out of guilt, perhaps, but it is still a gift. (thank you) T> ... That has intrinsic value that I believe is T> quite similar to what most of the software authors achieve. No. Some software, but not the really good stuff. GCC for example has contributors from every major computer house in the world. Emacs is also a who's who of commercial software engineering. Linux is constantly improved to scratch real itches. It's noble to think of lone hackers in their basements working selflessly for the good of mankind, but the reality is the vast majority of good free software is written by and for the people who need it for real, tangible and bottom-line-dollar reasons. Even in university research, we used GCC to save us the cost of SGI C, and hacked at it to support GL (that was before openGL) T> I think such a model would be great if there is an equitable T> return on the endorsement that such works receive by being able T> to claim any sense of officialness from the LDP. I believe that comes from having the LDP authors write it. This is why anyone involved int the LDP is a hot target for publishers when they go to a Linux expo. They have the machinery to publish, but need the knowledge, we have the knowledge, but need the machinery (which includes the financing) T> People tend not to want to read large works online. I don't see T> the LDP or the community gaining much by being to publish a T> document online that isn't readily consumable in that form. Then why are the pre-release books at ORA and MCP so popular? Is it because people want to know a book is good before they buy it, or are they like me and distrust books until repeated use of the online version tells me it is more economical to just go buy it. For example, I want to learn some DTD, and the online docs stink. The 'answer' given in the mailing lists is "wait for my book" but i have no reassurance from the online docs that the printed edition will be any better organized than the current docs. For example, having tags defined out of context in alphabetical order does not solve any of my use-cases. T> I believe the community takes licensing issues seriously as a T> general rule. I don't believe the community is necessarily T> well versed in the technicality of licensing though, and that T> it will err on the side of caution == freedom where there is T> any doubt. Certainly I will. We are solving that :) On of my authors is teaming with a legal expert to write a book on open source licences. T> Hmm.. I think hardware vendors who distribute binary only T> kernel modules will find growing resistance and pressure to T> release source. Do such binary modules get included with T> Linux's kernel source or endorsed by him? You see? Even you appeal to the 'official kernel' :) I will wager that the first winmodem module, even if binary, will get wide distribution on Linux CDs by all distros. The itch is too great not to scratch it. T> The reality of the situation will probably be a diversity of T> works sitting somewhere within that spectrum. All the while, T> the publishers are able to claim implicit endorsement by the T> LDP while the Linux community gets a work that it can read T> online, or perhaps print for itself, both of which are T> impractical because of the size/nature of the work. Would you really even consider printing an entire book? I don't even print entire HowTo's ... I just print the parts I need. If I gave you my Kernel book, would you need the SMP chapter? What if all you needed was the SMP chapter? What if all you needed was one table in the SMP chapter? T> I think if publishing companies feel strongly about that, that T> they should do it, without expecting/requiring endorsement from T> the LDP. I'm sure the LDP would be happy to maintain an index T> of material published online in this fashion without making any T> claims that those works were works of the LDP. Then let's see it because ORA, NewRiders, Coriolis and Sams are already doing this. T> Several independent publishers of LDP material exist in T> countries around the world. I do believe they would be missed. To repeat, I am not advocating a blanket policy on all docs, just on these that are 'donated' by the publishers. The micro-publishers of the SAG &c can still do that. Also, the licence says you cannot publish "without permission" and there are many precidents for such permission. T> ... unless you are proposing that T> the LDP additionally have the right to select/refuse T> incorporation of particular documents or that it have some T> mandate to determine what documents a publisher will produce. Oh, wouldn't that be something! Why wouldn't it work? It works for Linux CD's T> I appreciate the value of having access to those skills. Still, T> if you're a volunatary author sometimes the last thing you want T> is somebody telling you that this sentence is unclear and T> perhaps you ought to mention fardnargle there. So don't work on these projects. It is that simple. Stick to producing little handouts. No one is saying all docs must fall under this plan. T> The publishers will want control. Oh and the LDP wouldn't? ;) That is what a relationship is all about! T> Yes they are, and you yourself have already pointed out why. T> Motive. No motive. They are racking in cash now, all of them. They don't need the LDP's endorsement, really. Even MIS publishes Linux books. All they need do is gain endorsements from any of a thousand other Linux orgs. BTW: Exactly how many publishers have proposed this arrangement? Remember that I am not speaking for a publisher, but just talking about one that I know. Are they really beating down your door? So far, I have been on this list for a month and have not seen a single mention of any such deals. T> The LDP barely exists. I truly don't know why some group of T> like-minded people haven't gone off an established their own T> Linux documentation project, picked a catchy name, developed T> some sort of constitution and actively sought to encourage T> existing author to defect or at the very least contribute to T> both. Hmmm ... "opendoc.org" appears to be taken (the webpage is a placeholder) I know of several such projects outside of the Linux world. The LDP has the advantage that all the publishers have it stuck in their heads you are it: Just about every book on the shelves lists you as a primary reference for "more information", in many cases, because the author really didn't understand that part of their book ;) T> if (stalled) diverge(); else unify(); T> That's how it works isn't it? provided no one has set a SIGALRM :) -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Telecom Services : Internet Consulting : http://www.teledyn.com Linux Writers Workshop Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-hack/ "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." -- (Miles Davis) From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id PAA32520 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:06:43 +1000 Received: (qmail 21523 invoked by uid 38); 23 Sep 1999 05:06:30 -0000 Resent-Date: 23 Sep 1999 05:06:30 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: garym@maya.dyndns.org Sender: garym@mail.wccweb.com To: Terry Dawson Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: [off topic] Re: Licensing issues References: <199909202101.HAA16947@albert.animats.net> <19990921102713.C17878@albert.animats.net> <19990922085238.B24076@albert.animats.net> <19990922172230.A26291@albert.animats.net> From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Date: 23 Sep 1999 01:05:33 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: Gary Lawrence Murphy Organization: TeleDynamics --- the Art of Being There X-Url: http://www.teledyn.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <0pZPhB.A.AQF.WVb63@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/541 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org >>>>> "T" == Terry Dawson writes: T> The GPL doesn't talk about cost in a dollar sense. Of course T> you can sell those things. The question should be: Should those T> derived works be covered by GPL? It's the "2B or not 2B" :) meaning of course, paragraph 2b of the GPL (1991) T> To be GPL compliant it would have to also contain obvious T> notice that you've modified the work. True, but the work retains its lineage. If I modify XBill, it has a different face, but the logic is still just the logic. In words, I can change the logic dramatically with the insertion of just a few words, and it still 'works' >> I see this as the first problem of the LDP: How do we stay >> current? T> User demand, how do book publishers stay current? Then visit comp.os.linux.setup. The demand is huge. They are screaming for new docs. What modem *do* I use for mgetty? Don't tell me the XyZel, because it has long since ceased to exist. Publishers meet the demand. The 185th most popular book in all of Amazon last month was a Linux book. The author made several thousand dollars per month basically just doing what the LDP should do: Teach the basics of installing and running a Linux machine. T> Bah, I don't know how many or of what sort of HOWTO you've T> maintained, but I can assure you part of the reason I handed T> mine off to other people was because the work load was just too T> high, not with keeping the document up to date, but with T> responding to questions that people had of things they didn't T> understand, or that I'd gotten wrong, or with suggestions for T> things that should be included. Exactly. Now, what if you were being paid to fix it, and someone else first filtered out the "I didn't understand" comments. This is what happens with publishers. We finish a book and no sooner does it get to the bookstores when the publisher calls back for a revision. The royalties on such a book can easily be several thousand dollars per month. THe author of the 1989 "Unix Primer" still gets a nice $400 cheque every single month. It helps take the sting out of the bother. Now, if your howto was software, you'd want your copy to perform better, so if someon sent you a patch to improve the algorithm, you'd use it in a flash. Because your howto was a gift, you gave it and then had to hand it off because it no longer served any purpose for you but bother. T> There is a healthy community of LDP consumers out there who do T> actively contribute to the accuracy and updating of documents. And they are to be commended! I have also hired several to work on book projects because I want to see some of those royalty dollars going to reinforce their very generous behaviour. T> I don't believe that either. We all write/maintain documents T> for a variety of reasons. My prime motivation was to appease a T> conscience upset at not being skilled/positioned to contribute That just renames the same thing. You gave a gift. You didn't do it for yourself and your clients didn't pay for it. You paid for it and gave it as a gift. Out of guilt, perhaps, but it is still a gift. (thank you) T> ... That has intrinsic value that I believe is T> quite similar to what most of the software authors achieve. No. Some software, but not the really good stuff. GCC for example has contributors from every major computer house in the world. Emacs is also a who's who of commercial software engineering. Linux is constantly improved to scratch real itches. It's noble to think of lone hackers in their basements working selflessly for the good of mankind, but the reality is the vast majority of good free software is written by and for the people who need it for real, tangible and bottom-line-dollar reasons. Even in university research, we used GCC to save us the cost of SGI C, and hacked at it to support GL (that was before openGL) T> I think such a model would be great if there is an equitable T> return on the endorsement that such works receive by being able T> to claim any sense of officialness from the LDP. I believe that comes from having the LDP authors write it. This is why anyone involved int the LDP is a hot target for publishers when they go to a Linux expo. They have the machinery to publish, but need the knowledge, we have the knowledge, but need the machinery (which includes the financing) T> People tend not to want to read large works online. I don't see T> the LDP or the community gaining much by being to publish a T> document online that isn't readily consumable in that form. Then why are the pre-release books at ORA and MCP so popular? Is it because people want to know a book is good before they buy it, or are they like me and distrust books until repeated use of the online version tells me it is more economical to just go buy it. For example, I want to learn some DTD, and the online docs stink. The 'answer' given in the mailing lists is "wait for my book" but i have no reassurance from the online docs that the printed edition will be any better organized than the current docs. For example, having tags defined out of context in alphabetical order does not solve any of my use-cases. T> I believe the community takes licensing issues seriously as a T> general rule. I don't believe the community is necessarily T> well versed in the technicality of licensing though, and that T> it will err on the side of caution == freedom where there is T> any doubt. Certainly I will. We are solving that :) On of my authors is teaming with a legal expert to write a book on open source licences. T> Hmm.. I think hardware vendors who distribute binary only T> kernel modules will find growing resistance and pressure to T> release source. Do such binary modules get included with T> Linux's kernel source or endorsed by him? You see? Even you appeal to the 'official kernel' :) I will wager that the first winmodem module, even if binary, will get wide distribution on Linux CDs by all distros. The itch is too great not to scratch it. T> The reality of the situation will probably be a diversity of T> works sitting somewhere within that spectrum. All the while, T> the publishers are able to claim implicit endorsement by the T> LDP while the Linux community gets a work that it can read T> online, or perhaps print for itself, both of which are T> impractical because of the size/nature of the work. Would you really even consider printing an entire book? I don't even print entire HowTo's ... I just print the parts I need. If I gave you my Kernel book, would you need the SMP chapter? What if all you needed was the SMP chapter? What if all you needed was one table in the SMP chapter? T> I think if publishing companies feel strongly about that, that T> they should do it, without expecting/requiring endorsement from T> the LDP. I'm sure the LDP would be happy to maintain an index T> of material published online in this fashion without making any T> claims that those works were works of the LDP. Then let's see it because ORA, NewRiders, Coriolis and Sams are already doing this. T> Several independent publishers of LDP material exist in T> countries around the world. I do believe they would be missed. To repeat, I am not advocating a blanket policy on all docs, just on these that are 'donated' by the publishers. The micro-publishers of the SAG &c can still do that. Also, the licence says you cannot publish "without permission" and there are many precidents for such permission. T> ... unless you are proposing that T> the LDP additionally have the right to select/refuse T> incorporation of particular documents or that it have some T> mandate to determine what documents a publisher will produce. Oh, wouldn't that be something! Why wouldn't it work? It works for Linux CD's T> I appreciate the value of having access to those skills. Still, T> if you're a volunatary author sometimes the last thing you want T> is somebody telling you that this sentence is unclear and T> perhaps you ought to mention fardnargle there. So don't work on these projects. It is that simple. Stick to producing little handouts. No one is saying all docs must fall under this plan. T> The publishers will want control. Oh and the LDP wouldn't? ;) That is what a relationship is all about! T> Yes they are, and you yourself have already pointed out why. T> Motive. No motive. They are racking in cash now, all of them. They don't need the LDP's endorsement, really. Even MIS publishes Linux books. All they need do is gain endorsements from any of a thousand other Linux orgs. BTW: Exactly how many publishers have proposed this arrangement? Remember that I am not speaking for a publisher, but just talking about one that I know. Are they really beating down your door? So far, I have been on this list for a month and have not seen a single mention of any such deals. T> The LDP barely exists. I truly don't know why some group of T> like-minded people haven't gone off an established their own T> Linux documentation project, picked a catchy name, developed T> some sort of constitution and actively sought to encourage T> existing author to defect or at the very least contribute to T> both. Hmmm ... "opendoc.org" appears to be taken (the webpage is a placeholder) I know of several such projects outside of the Linux world. The LDP has the advantage that all the publishers have it stuck in their heads you are it: Just about every book on the shelves lists you as a primary reference for "more information", in many cases, because the author really didn't understand that part of their book ;) T> if (stalled) diverge(); else unify(); T> That's how it works isn't it? provided no one has set a SIGALRM :) -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Telecom Services : Internet Consulting : http://www.teledyn.com Linux Writers Workshop Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-hack/ "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." -- (Miles Davis) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from crazypenguins.commandprompt.com (commandprompt.com [209.102.107.108]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id MAA07015 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:52:10 +1000 Received: from beta.linuxports.com (beta.linuxports.com [209.102.107.110]) by crazypenguins.commandprompt.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA06660; Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:01:47 -0700 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 20:01:47 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mr. Poet" X-Sender: jd@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com To: Terry Dawson cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org, ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org, recipient list not shown: ; Subject: Re: Comments on web site. In-Reply-To: <19990927124144.A6870@albert.animats.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hello, This is useful, I will look at it and see if I can make it more apparent. Thank you Poet LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Terry Dawson wrote: > On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 06:22:55PM -0700, Mr. Poet wrote: > > Uhmmm.... the link is 1 click... outside of putting the actual howt-howto > > on the main page I can not make it any shorter than that. > > > > Try clicking on: Contribute/Submit on the front page on the left hand > > side... > > The HOWTO is one click, but the actual relevant detail is not. > > One click gets me to the index of the HOWTO. > It's then not entirely obvious from the index where the actual information > I want is, but I'll guess at "distibuting your documentation" .. > and then tucked away is the single paragraph of information I wanted in > the first place .. > > regards > Terry > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from smtp2.free.fr (root@smtp2.free.fr [212.27.32.6]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id FAA11551 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 05:06:28 +1000 Received: from victis.oeil.qc.ca (toulouse-59-17.dial.proxad.net [212.27.59.17]) by smtp2.free.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id VAA28311; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:06:11 +0200 Received: from guylhem by victis.oeil.qc.ca with local (Exim 3.02 #3) id 11VXLx-0000IS-00; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:45:49 +0200 Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:45:49 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Terry Dawson Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Comments on web site. Message-ID: <19990927114549.A1132@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990927094647.A5846@albert.animats.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <19990927094647.A5846@albert.animats.net>; from Terry Dawson on Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 09:46:47AM +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 09:46:47AM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote: > The information on how to submit a new or updated document is way way too > many clicks away. I had to go looking to find it. I suggest you put somet= hing I'll change my .sig to show it. > The LDP Manifesto has lost an important word from very first sentence of = its > Overview. What happened to "free" ? The goal of the LDP has always been to The manifesto will change soon. > http://www.linuxdoc.org/copyright.html is still incorrect, misleading and Will be replaced by the DGPL and a license guide for acceptable licenses. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN+88zd+QeWug/qfFAQFPkwP+LI+2Y2l97PqdcXEJI8bnkS/esImYJ5fk mBOOQqanxJNcbf3T1WTDrW7PlmEO1PRvL6CUCDBRG7Bwnx+9vGisJQsVr6veMEgj fY7iOlFFY2N3dMl8RYL8FoRHGRgpd3ZqnZ8zgnvl4LyWBpWV4+QXK7binzE7hcuW xErexowEVJ0= =ujfx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J-- From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from smtp2.free.fr (root@smtp2.free.fr [212.27.32.6]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id FAA11552 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 05:06:28 +1000 Received: from victis.oeil.qc.ca (toulouse-59-17.dial.proxad.net [212.27.59.17]) by smtp2.free.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id VAA28324; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:06:19 +0200 Received: from guylhem by victis.oeil.qc.ca with local (Exim 3.02 #3) id 11VXRI-0000Ik-00; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:51:20 +0200 Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:51:20 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Terry Dawson Cc: LDP discuss Subject: Re: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)) Message-ID: <19990927115120.B1132@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990926182106.B1752@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <19990927095101.A6047@albert.animats.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=qcHopEYAB45HaUaB; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <19990927095101.A6047@albert.animats.net>; from Terry Dawson on Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 09:51:01AM +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 --qcHopEYAB45HaUaB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 09:51:01AM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote: > ... and then what? mutter comments into the winds? You'd better send them to ldp-submit and Cc the author :-) > Is there some document, that even briefly, describes the role and function > of the QC, what actions they should take, and how they should take them? It has been posted by Alessandro Rubini some weeks ago, clearly explaining the goals and the functions of the members. (BTW, could it be added to our site ?) > As an author I'm not interested in submitting a document for QC and having > ten responses telling me the same things. I'd like a single coordinated > response please. Otherwise I might just as well use the community at large > for QC as I always have. As a 'trusted' author (this is not your first time) I doubt anyone will reread your document, but you can request it if you want more immediate feedback. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --qcHopEYAB45HaUaB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN+8+GN+QeWug/qfFAQE43wP8C39S6derl16IVGrqdwb1QBDjZKNYYyd7 F1ST6SzWwfQWxD/wpVYk3PQv1IE/OGZo096LQ4NC2vOKKZvliLM3AKrj0mEr9mMu WiORoEEu+KrMqATIeew1AdbLW6PlZ70t65wIxj9PRuUuOKiXs1RJXqqPEcDV8U/W InEUCRDl1gg= =E4Xu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qcHopEYAB45HaUaB-- From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id FAA11639 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 05:23:38 +1000 Received: (qmail 29178 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 19:06:43 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 19:06:43 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:51:20 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Terry Dawson Cc: LDP discuss Subject: Re: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)) Message-ID: <19990927115120.B1132@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990926182106.B1752@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <19990927095101.A6047@albert.animats.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=qcHopEYAB45HaUaB; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <19990927095101.A6047@albert.animats.net>; from Terry Dawson on Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 09:51:01AM +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/613 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --qcHopEYAB45HaUaB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 09:51:01AM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote: > ... and then what? mutter comments into the winds? You'd better send them to ldp-submit and Cc the author :-) > Is there some document, that even briefly, describes the role and function > of the QC, what actions they should take, and how they should take them? It has been posted by Alessandro Rubini some weeks ago, clearly explaining the goals and the functions of the members. (BTW, could it be added to our site ?) > As an author I'm not interested in submitting a document for QC and having > ten responses telling me the same things. I'd like a single coordinated > response please. Otherwise I might just as well use the community at large > for QC as I always have. As a 'trusted' author (this is not your first time) I doubt anyone will reread your document, but you can request it if you want more immediate feedback. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --qcHopEYAB45HaUaB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN+8+GN+QeWug/qfFAQE43wP8C39S6derl16IVGrqdwb1QBDjZKNYYyd7 F1ST6SzWwfQWxD/wpVYk3PQv1IE/OGZo096LQ4NC2vOKKZvliLM3AKrj0mEr9mMu WiORoEEu+KrMqATIeew1AdbLW6PlZ70t65wIxj9PRuUuOKiXs1RJXqqPEcDV8U/W InEUCRDl1gg= =E4Xu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qcHopEYAB45HaUaB-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id FAA11646 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 05:23:44 +1000 Received: (qmail 29245 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 19:06:46 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 19:06:45 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:45:49 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Terry Dawson Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Comments on web site. Message-ID: <19990927114549.A1132@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990927094647.A5846@albert.animats.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <19990927094647.A5846@albert.animats.net>; from Terry Dawson on Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 09:46:47AM +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/614 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 09:46:47AM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote: > The information on how to submit a new or updated document is way way too > many clicks away. I had to go looking to find it. I suggest you put somet= hing I'll change my .sig to show it. > The LDP Manifesto has lost an important word from very first sentence of = its > Overview. What happened to "free" ? The goal of the LDP has always been to The manifesto will change soon. > http://www.linuxdoc.org/copyright.html is still incorrect, misleading and Will be replaced by the DGPL and a license guide for acceptable licenses. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN+88zd+QeWug/qfFAQFPkwP+LI+2Y2l97PqdcXEJI8bnkS/esImYJ5fk mBOOQqanxJNcbf3T1WTDrW7PlmEO1PRvL6CUCDBRG7Bwnx+9vGisJQsVr6veMEgj fY7iOlFFY2N3dMl8RYL8FoRHGRgpd3ZqnZ8zgnvl4LyWBpWV4+QXK7binzE7hcuW xErexowEVJ0= =ujfx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from smtp2.free.fr (root@smtp2.free.fr [212.27.32.6]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id IAA19412 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:24:04 +1000 Received: from victis.oeil.qc.ca (toulouse-59-52.dial.proxad.net [212.27.59.52]) by smtp2.free.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id AAA11423; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:23:58 +0200 Received: from guylhem by victis.oeil.qc.ca with local (Exim 3.02 #3) id 11VtQs-0000Gy-00; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:20:22 +0200 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:20:21 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Terry Dawson Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) Message-ID: <19990928112021.B1019@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990928102154.C13122@albert.animats.net> <19990928105714.I13122@albert.animats.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=KFztAG8eRSV9hGtP; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <19990928105714.I13122@albert.animats.net>; from Terry Dawson on Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:57:14AM +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 --KFztAG8eRSV9hGtP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:57:14AM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote: > It will be arbitrary because there is no formal voting mechanism in place > for the LDP to make it anything else. The terms would be arbitrarily > decided by whoever drafts the rules. So let's vote : Who agrees with Joshua idea (2 month/30 days/60 days, i.e. letting some copyright to the LDP to ensure future updates) ? Who disagrees and think all copyrights should be kept by each author ? There will not be any arbitrar decision. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --KFztAG8eRSV9hGtP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN/CIVd+QeWug/qfFAQFcMwP/aQj3gjn47fUE6ilkNkdo5/HK5xMffw7G +NDnDHinkKPiiJZnoLpKudfqggtKPH96XJRFyYXzf3KwNzPqgJr7zCU8jC4KDVs1 xG9TXs56vbUqAmJ177DXWMFgkYW+BJeUqQvsy+ErDWGKY/EwEGNZLqiSTF3ZIlAM O0ZcRxeJPcg= =gJMJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --KFztAG8eRSV9hGtP-- From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from smtp2.free.fr (root@smtp2.free.fr [212.27.32.6]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id IAA19415 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:24:07 +1000 Received: from victis.oeil.qc.ca (toulouse-59-52.dial.proxad.net [212.27.59.52]) by smtp2.free.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id AAA11427; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:24:00 +0200 Received: from guylhem by victis.oeil.qc.ca with local (Exim 3.02 #3) id 11VtWN-0000H8-00; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:26:03 +0200 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:26:03 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Terry Dawson Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) Message-ID: <19990928112603.C1019@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990926182334.C1752@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <199909271752.NAA03210@chef.meridian.redhat.com> <19990927214735.C3665@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <19990928104532.F13122@albert.animats.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="iFRdW5/EC4oqxDHL"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <19990928104532.F13122@albert.animats.net>; from Terry Dawson on Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:45:32AM +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 --iFRdW5/EC4oqxDHL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:45:32AM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote: > You already know how I stand on this matter. I think it is counterproduct= ive, > but I wouldn't oppose it so long as it could be decided, but the copyright > holder(s), on a document by document basis and not be a blanket arrangeme= nt. I'd like to add this if companies decided to offer documents (on which they own copyrights) to the LDP, but wanted printing exclusivity. This would be really counterproductive and "non free", while a short term exclusivity could make it better for anyone. > This is a little silly to state. Firstly, it's already covered by the > notion of a free document. Secondly it's only allowable if the license for > the document in question allows it (kinda the same point from another ang= le) But it is not clear enough. > What is lacking is a clear definition of what that minimum standard is, ie > precisely what the freedoms that a document license *must* allow are. That's why the manifesto needs updates. > forward. The License issue, which has been around for some time now (year= s) > has to be addressed. I think we need to fix this before starting anything else. Please submit your ideas to David Lawyer who is working on the manifesto. > Is there any good reason why we can't use the OpenSource Definition? Documentation is not software. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --iFRdW5/EC4oqxDHL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN/CJq9+QeWug/qfFAQEVQAP/UfRrZYpJCyR+Q3bVn0VDrYtrX86VZ5fK yWUY4U131eTGkoPccP0tOnU0BKeyoDI4T61wl86hB9ANwZtjgEyZqX8tZLpbFv+l N9LmV6cP9DW6cqS1GAvumOETkdkfcz0FCjuLuzCiPt1CDf4NF78k0uNzoZ5tvsbr 5pR/0TLeLXo= =CfJ1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --iFRdW5/EC4oqxDHL-- From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from smtp2.free.fr (root@smtp2.free.fr [212.27.32.6]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id IAA19424 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:24:31 +1000 Received: from victis.oeil.qc.ca (toulouse-59-52.dial.proxad.net [212.27.59.52]) by smtp2.free.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id AAA11419; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:23:52 +0200 Received: from guylhem by victis.oeil.qc.ca with local (Exim 3.02 #3) id 11VtJi-0000Ge-00; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:12:58 +0200 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:12:58 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Terry Dawson Cc: Paul Jones , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)) Message-ID: <19990928111258.A1019@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990927010258.A4503@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <19990927213432.A3665@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <19990928102632.E13122@albert.animats.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <19990928102632.E13122@albert.animats.net>; from Terry Dawson on Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:26:32AM +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 --UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:26:32AM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote: > Then you'd better start the process of making the LDP a legal entity so > it can legitimately own something. Paul, can you do this ? (remember Sybex requests) > If you were to add such a clause then you would immediately invalidate > large portions of your existing document base from being included in the > LDP. It will only make possible updates to any unmaintained documents. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN/CGmt+QeWug/qfFAQGpFQP7BCKrRFmirmVzkYuML0GWArD09vanIuJY wPvl599c2jtXxPFY538G/jy6YDxlQDDDthdvgyZbYk0oYhBVo2lzTiPB0QWXIk6d 9rBehrtX/SUnMU437TipMzaGRCx39nhnT+2Fm1DgsbM2ZCDOPJMzJm3a/hi8mmyJ 2afgeDdpvG4= =Oll9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2-- From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id IAA19471 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:34:31 +1000 Received: (qmail 22794 invoked by uid 38); 28 Sep 1999 22:25:09 -0000 Resent-Date: 28 Sep 1999 22:25:09 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:20:21 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Terry Dawson Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) Message-ID: <19990928112021.B1019@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990928102154.C13122@albert.animats.net> <19990928105714.I13122@albert.animats.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=KFztAG8eRSV9hGtP; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <19990928105714.I13122@albert.animats.net>; from Terry Dawson on Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:57:14AM +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <0kSn4C.A.ujF.EBU83@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/641 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --KFztAG8eRSV9hGtP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:57:14AM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote: > It will be arbitrary because there is no formal voting mechanism in place > for the LDP to make it anything else. The terms would be arbitrarily > decided by whoever drafts the rules. So let's vote : Who agrees with Joshua idea (2 month/30 days/60 days, i.e. letting some copyright to the LDP to ensure future updates) ? Who disagrees and think all copyrights should be kept by each author ? There will not be any arbitrar decision. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --KFztAG8eRSV9hGtP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN/CIVd+QeWug/qfFAQFcMwP/aQj3gjn47fUE6ilkNkdo5/HK5xMffw7G +NDnDHinkKPiiJZnoLpKudfqggtKPH96XJRFyYXzf3KwNzPqgJr7zCU8jC4KDVs1 xG9TXs56vbUqAmJ177DXWMFgkYW+BJeUqQvsy+ErDWGKY/EwEGNZLqiSTF3ZIlAM O0ZcRxeJPcg= =gJMJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --KFztAG8eRSV9hGtP-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id IAA19478 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:34:47 +1000 Received: (qmail 22901 invoked by uid 38); 28 Sep 1999 22:25:14 -0000 Resent-Date: 28 Sep 1999 22:25:14 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:26:03 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Terry Dawson Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) Message-ID: <19990928112603.C1019@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990926182334.C1752@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <199909271752.NAA03210@chef.meridian.redhat.com> <19990927214735.C3665@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <19990928104532.F13122@albert.animats.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="iFRdW5/EC4oqxDHL"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <19990928104532.F13122@albert.animats.net>; from Terry Dawson on Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:45:32AM +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/642 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --iFRdW5/EC4oqxDHL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:45:32AM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote: > You already know how I stand on this matter. I think it is counterproduct= ive, > but I wouldn't oppose it so long as it could be decided, but the copyright > holder(s), on a document by document basis and not be a blanket arrangeme= nt. I'd like to add this if companies decided to offer documents (on which they own copyrights) to the LDP, but wanted printing exclusivity. This would be really counterproductive and "non free", while a short term exclusivity could make it better for anyone. > This is a little silly to state. Firstly, it's already covered by the > notion of a free document. Secondly it's only allowable if the license for > the document in question allows it (kinda the same point from another ang= le) But it is not clear enough. > What is lacking is a clear definition of what that minimum standard is, ie > precisely what the freedoms that a document license *must* allow are. That's why the manifesto needs updates. > forward. The License issue, which has been around for some time now (year= s) > has to be addressed. I think we need to fix this before starting anything else. Please submit your ideas to David Lawyer who is working on the manifesto. > Is there any good reason why we can't use the OpenSource Definition? Documentation is not software. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --iFRdW5/EC4oqxDHL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN/CJq9+QeWug/qfFAQEVQAP/UfRrZYpJCyR+Q3bVn0VDrYtrX86VZ5fK yWUY4U131eTGkoPccP0tOnU0BKeyoDI4T61wl86hB9ANwZtjgEyZqX8tZLpbFv+l N9LmV6cP9DW6cqS1GAvumOETkdkfcz0FCjuLuzCiPt1CDf4NF78k0uNzoZ5tvsbr 5pR/0TLeLXo= =CfJ1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --iFRdW5/EC4oqxDHL-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id IAA19486 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:35:10 +1000 Received: (qmail 24023 invoked by uid 38); 28 Sep 1999 22:26:01 -0000 Resent-Date: 28 Sep 1999 22:26:01 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:12:58 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Terry Dawson Cc: Paul Jones , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)) Message-ID: <19990928111258.A1019@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990927010258.A4503@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <19990927213432.A3665@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <19990928102632.E13122@albert.animats.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <19990928102632.E13122@albert.animats.net>; from Terry Dawson on Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:26:32AM +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/643 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:26:32AM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote: > Then you'd better start the process of making the LDP a legal entity so > it can legitimately own something. Paul, can you do this ? (remember Sybex requests) > If you were to add such a clause then you would immediately invalidate > large portions of your existing document base from being included in the > LDP. It will only make possible updates to any unmaintained documents. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN/CGmt+QeWug/qfFAQGpFQP7BCKrRFmirmVzkYuML0GWArD09vanIuJY wPvl599c2jtXxPFY538G/jy6YDxlQDDDthdvgyZbYk0oYhBVo2lzTiPB0QWXIk6d 9rBehrtX/SUnMU437TipMzaGRCx39nhnT+2Fm1DgsbM2ZCDOPJMzJm3a/hi8mmyJ 2afgeDdpvG4= =Oll9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UlVJffcvxoiEqYs2-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from lafn.org (lafn.ORG [206.117.18.1]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id CAA24996 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 02:26:29 +1000 Received: by lafn.org id AA09320 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for terry@albert.animats.net); Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:26:12 -0700 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:26:12 -0700 Message-Id: <199909291626.AA09320@lafn.org> From: bf347@lafn.org (David Lawyer) To: terry@albert.animats.net Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxcdoc.org Reply-To: bf347@lafn.org Terry Dawson wrote: >Is there any good reason why we can't use the OpenSource Definition? Yes. First, it's for software, not docs. But mainly it does not require that licenses be free. It doesn't even have a requirement that a license must permit one to make copies. If you cant copy it, you can't even put in on a website. David Lawyer From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from lafn.org (lafn.ORG [206.117.18.1]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id SAA29919 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:27:11 +1000 Received: by lafn.org id AA18952 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for terry@albert.animats.net); Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:26:50 -0700 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:26:50 -0700 Message-Id: <199909300826.AA18952@lafn.org> From: bf347@lafn.org (David Lawyer) To: terry@albert.animats.net Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxcdoc.org Reply-To: bf347@lafn.org Terry Dawson wrote: >Is there any good reason why we can't use the OpenSource Definition? > Yes. First, it's for software, not docs. But mainly it does not require that licenses be free. It doesn't even have a requirement that a license must permit one to make copies. If you cant copy it, you can't even put in on a website. David Lawyer From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from smtp1.free.fr (root@smtp1.free.fr [212.27.32.5]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id VAA30938 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:46:48 +1000 Received: from victis.oeil.qc.ca (toulouse-51-204.dial.proxad.net [212.27.51.204]) by smtp1.free.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id NAA07384; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:46:37 +0200 Received: from guylhem by victis.oeil.qc.ca with local (Exim 3.02 #3) id 11WFjD-0000FU-00; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:08:47 +0200 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:08:47 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: terry@albert.animats.net Cc: guylhem@oeil.qc.ca, ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) Message-ID: <19990929110847.B926@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990928112021.B1019@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <199909290104.LAA20321@albert.animats.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <199909290104.LAA20321@albert.animats.net>; from terry@albert.animats.net on Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 11:04:54AM +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 --2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 11:04:54AM +1000, terry@albert.animats.net wrote: [license/ownership] We'd just explicitly add this to the license (see David's post on modified version) > > There will not be any arbitrar decision. >=20 > It will be arbitrary. What are the terms of the vote? How will it work? The majority decides. > What happens to the will of the majority of authors who either aren't > subscribed to this list, don't have time to follow the discussion, or It happens in any vote. > are too busy to answer before someone decides the (unstated) voting > period has ended? This vote will last 2 weeks. Is it long enough ? --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project: http://www.linuxdoc.org PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem ; Email: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca To submit new HOWTOs to the LDP, mail ldp-submit@lists.linuxdoc.org --2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN/HXH9+QeWug/qfFAQEXTQP+ONpcWUwj2Y547KDW27jNNdEuf5cW4JKC oGaPmqxo/tpepyrDAp/ANOJutYE1LimmUi2YFlbqL3J56sJX9TMBLgIsIT2iGdUI GvWaOyVtYQvarHA5TmrzsydDNz558Csd+VvtvcSSJncHOpJ9UP7OYjHFNH/hiWHz Ea6tfIc1lxI= =UEyW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r-- From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id VAA30966 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:47:16 +1000 Received: (qmail 10460 invoked by uid 38); 30 Sep 1999 11:46:58 -0000 Resent-Date: 30 Sep 1999 11:46:58 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:08:47 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: terry@albert.animats.net Cc: guylhem@oeil.qc.ca, ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) Message-ID: <19990929110847.B926@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990928112021.B1019@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <199909290104.LAA20321@albert.animats.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <199909290104.LAA20321@albert.animats.net>; from terry@albert.animats.net on Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 11:04:54AM +1000 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/693 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 11:04:54AM +1000, terry@albert.animats.net wrote: [license/ownership] We'd just explicitly add this to the license (see David's post on modified version) > > There will not be any arbitrar decision. >=20 > It will be arbitrary. What are the terms of the vote? How will it work? The majority decides. > What happens to the will of the majority of authors who either aren't > subscribed to this list, don't have time to follow the discussion, or It happens in any vote. > are too busy to answer before someone decides the (unstated) voting > period has ended? This vote will last 2 weeks. Is it long enough ? --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project: http://www.linuxdoc.org PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem ; Email: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca To submit new HOWTOs to the LDP, mail ldp-submit@lists.linuxdoc.org --2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN/HXH9+QeWug/qfFAQEXTQP+ONpcWUwj2Y547KDW27jNNdEuf5cW4JKC oGaPmqxo/tpepyrDAp/ANOJutYE1LimmUi2YFlbqL3J56sJX9TMBLgIsIT2iGdUI GvWaOyVtYQvarHA5TmrzsydDNz558Csd+VvtvcSSJncHOpJ9UP7OYjHFNH/hiWHz Ea6tfIc1lxI= =UEyW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2B/JsCI69OhZNC5r-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 21:12:47 +0000 (/etc/localtime) From: terry@albert Subject: Re: LDP CVS server? To: liw@iki.fi cc: djb@redhat.com, jim@jimpick.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII On 4 May, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > It should allow all LDP authors to commit, and should allow anonymous > read-only access. > > I have no experience running a CVS server for this, so I don't know if > login accounts are needed for those who need to commit stuff. Hopefully > not. Ok, I know next to nothing about cvS myself, so I'll find someone with some experience with it and ask them to assist. Donnie, how keen are you on running it? Terry -- terry@albert.aapra.org.au, terry@linux.org.au From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id WAA09998 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 22:20:32 +1000 Received: (qmail 5201 invoked by uid 38); 1 Sep 1999 12:18:17 -0000 Resent-Date: 1 Sep 1999 12:18:17 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: deb@thepuffingroup.com Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 07:11:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Deb Richardson X-Sender: deb@erebus To: Richard Ames cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org, ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Subject: RE: mailing list archives In-Reply-To: <000101bef429$1837d020$0200a8c0@perch> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/297 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > And it would be good to know where the LDP is headed. These lists are very > quite for such an important topic. Matt Welsh posted a note on the LDP website on Saturday. Since then, as far as I know, there has been little activity or discussion regarding the direction of the LDP. For those of you who haven't seen it, Matt's note is here: http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/changes.html I believe that someone is working on setting up proper virtual hosting for the linuxdoc.org domain. Paul, as you know, has already offered to set up mailing list archives. I believe that there is also some activity regarding getting a CVS of some sort set up on MetaLab, but I'm not sure what the current status of that is. A new HOWTO HOWTO is also in the process of being written, and I believe that was mentioned here. I've been discussing some stuff with Nik over at the FreeBSD Documentation Project regarding the creation of non-project-specific documentation that may be hosted at the OSWG (ie: a Style Guide; guides to vi, emacs, majordomo, etc.). This isn't directly related to the LDP, except for the fact that the LDP would also be able to benefit from these docs (when they exist). There has also be a fair bit of discussion regarding the LDP on the OSWG mailing list. If you would like to read that discussion, you can find the list archives here: http://linuxchix.devin.com/techwriters/ - deb -- == Open Source Writers Group (OSWG) == http://www.thepuffingroup.com/oswg == deb@thepuffingroup.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id XAA23774 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:23:55 +1000 Received: (qmail 5031 invoked by uid 38); 3 Sep 1999 13:23:36 -0000 Resent-Date: 3 Sep 1999 13:23:35 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: olea@tsai.es Message-ID: <37CFCC9A.8DFA7DCC@tsai.es> Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 15:26:50 +0200 From: Ismael Olea X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [es] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: es-ES,es,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: richard@linsup.com CC: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Bitkeeper References: <000101bef5b0$00c65640$0200a8c0@perch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Infomail-Id: 936365349.0B44010A811066.5349 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/308 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by albert.animats.net id XAA23774 Richard Ames escribió: > See http://www.bitkeeper.com/bk01.html, etc. for detail. It said it's a closed beta and it's not ready for download... :-? How about PRCS? The Bitkeeper people seems to say it's a good tool. -- Ismael Olea TSAI, Área Sistemas, Unix tlf. 91-7548748 olea@tsai.es olea@iname.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id AAA10325 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:38:04 +1000 Received: (qmail 12187 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 14:36:17 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 14:36:17 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 07:45:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mr. Poet" X-Sender: jd@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com To: Richard Ames cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org, "Mr. Poet" Subject: Re: LDP web site, etc. In-Reply-To: <000e01bf08bf$e7c84220$0200a8c0@perch> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/605 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hello, Thank you for your comments, we have talked at length about banner ads and it has been pretty much decided that they are not required. We have considered to doing something like link exchange so that more people that normally wouldn't know about the LDP would. I have also considered running banners for other OSS sites the way that linux.com does but that will have to wait until more things come around the corner. I will look into the samba site and see what they have. Again, thanks for the comments. Poet LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Richard Ames wrote: > > I'd like to thank those who are working to reinvigorate the LDP.... > > Web site: > > It needs to be more compact. > > I agree the core team should be mentioned, but possibly the names are one > click away. The Samba pages are a good example http://www.samba.org/ > > The innovation today with the bar down the left is good but also needs to be > more concise... > > I understand the banner ad is supplying the prize for the new Logo, but hope > we don't need ads long term... > > Thanks, > > Richard. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA01190 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:03:36 +1000 Received: (qmail 6944 invoked by uid 38); 30 Sep 1999 21:02:53 -0000 Resent-Date: 30 Sep 1999 21:02:53 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:51:06 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Jim Pick Cc: "Mr. Poet" , LDP discuss Subject: Re: Updating Internic info for linuxdoc.org Message-ID: <19990930135106.C879@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <87yae06em5.fsf@pepper.jimpick.com> <871zbhpexg.fsf@pepper.jimpick.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <871zbhpexg.fsf@pepper.jimpick.com>; from Jim Pick on Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 02:48:27PM -0700 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/702 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Could you send me your contact info so I could finish this task off? Joshua Drake, one of our webmasters, volunteered on ldp-discuss for linuxdo= c.org. Josh could you please fill in the form? --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project: http://www.linuxdoc.org PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem ; Email: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca To submit new HOWTOs to the LDP, mail ldp-submit@lists.linuxdoc.org --uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN/NOqt+QeWug/qfFAQGX7wQApA81cYFe0iwL9rCrerpHCf0XM9zS+xSZ R3t0rX0xyvuq+e7VPyzX+zCyvUAxVfLANeHVjeawNlMMn3QzLpZXR4ITWnZeiIAv upO8yBJFi0cUR6b+azH0yvv6fI0s/qiwgpbLAPr62d+/hYgJCaLoxJIIpznwW36k 9InayNzKKSg= =/Tx+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id VAA30947 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:46:54 +1000 Received: (qmail 10099 invoked by uid 38); 30 Sep 1999 11:46:44 -0000 Resent-Date: 30 Sep 1999 11:46:44 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 01:06:41 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Tim Bynum , "Mr. Poet" Cc: Vladimir Vuksan , ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Reasons for wanting to remove my documents Message-ID: <19990929010641.B1113@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Mr. Poet on Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 11:03:39AM -0700 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <4i-wtD.A.hdC.k2083@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/690 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 11:03:39AM -0700, Mr. Poet wrote: > In Progess: > Private Discussion: We do discuss many topics, but we only make it public when we agree, if it's usable or if we need a hand. Else ppl will say we only have idea and never realize them. - FTP could allow current (trusted) authors to bypass the QC to have a 1 day delay before integration in the main site. But I must have Tim opinion first, he's in charge of the HOWTO and maybe he'd like to check them individually. Anyway, he has his word to say here. - CVS will also be a possibility, but it is complicated, we can't impose authors sgml, a manifesto *AND* CVS... before writing HOWTOs. Therefore online submission and ldp-submit will be kept as easy alternatives. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN/FKAd+QeWug/qfFAQH5pgP+L6ZKZa4MBlKt5hPLB4pcwVIdr7D4qWak kPZW2CkwRFRlBQe9eQKHrXHdWP7Q7ElqRvJpPEZZdCAjRgJDSPp6ERQLEdvfjL2b HwGQwJi7DMud1fQi6TAwXhBggb8WRgq4hPXPl3OaInf2lsXsXGLn0qm7RI5aM3Ig kkoM+F6/l6A= =eXcl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id TAA29474 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 19:40:29 +1000 Received: (qmail 25462 invoked by uid 38); 4 Sep 1999 09:40:16 -0000 Resent-Date: 4 Sep 1999 09:40:16 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: cognition@bigfoot.com Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 09:51:47 +0000 (GMT) From: cogNiTioN Sender: cognition@bigfoot.com Reply-To: cognition@bigfoot.com To: Tim cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: kinda off topic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-COPYRIGHT: (C) Copyright 1999 cogNiTioN where applicable. No part of X-COPYRIGHT2: this message may be reproduced without prior permission. X-DISCLAIMER: All opinions expressed are mine. My service providers X-DISCLAIMER2: cannot be held responsible for the content of this message X-NOSPAM: Any unsolicited commercial email (spam) is subject to an archival X-NOSPAM2: fee of 1 UKP per byte per day until the fee is paid. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/324 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Tim wrote: > Hello All, > > I'm not enjoying the new list much b/c I can't get procmail to easily dump > all the ldp email to its own folder. > > Is anyone using procmail and not having a problem? If so, I'd love the > recipe. I'm new to this list, infact this is the first posting I recieved, so I have not yet had the chance to set up procmail to deliver it to it's own folder yet. But cheacking other posts it seems what I normally do with lists may work with this one as well. I use the "Return-Path:" header I have at the top of my header. For this list it appears to be: Return-Path: thus, I think a recipe that should work would be: # For ALL ldp lists into the directory IN.ldp-lists # Assuming tht you're not on any other lists coming from list.debain.org :0: * ^Return-Path:.*lists.debain.org IN.ldp-lists I'll probably set procmail up to deliver each ldp list to its own dir, like such: :0: * ^Return-Path:.*ldp-discuss IN.ldp-discuss # Assuming ldp-announce uses the same format :0: * ^Return-Path:.*ldp-announce IN.ldp-announce > Any help or assistance is appreciated. Sorry for the off-topic posting. This is the format I use for most the lists I'm on, and I find it agreable. But I'm a newbie, so and other ways to do it would also be appreciated. BTW: I'll apologise in advance if I've missed any etiquette associated with this list, as I've not observde my normal lurk period and most the lists I'm are quite relaxed. BTW: is there a difference between the ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org and the ldp-discuss@lists.debain.org? > Best Regards, > Tim Hope it helps. David -- ,------------------------------, ,====================| S H U N A N T I O N L I N E |===================, | David M. Webster '------------------------------' (aka cogNiTioN) | |=======================================================================| | cognition@bigfoot.com |=============| cognite.net will be online RSN. | '====== I use Linux everyday to up my productivity - so up yours! ======' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id UAA29672 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 20:25:39 +1000 Received: (qmail 31550 invoked by uid 38); 4 Sep 1999 10:24:07 -0000 Resent-Date: 4 Sep 1999 10:24:07 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: Hugo.van.der.Kooij@caiw.nl Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 12:23:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Hugo van der Kooij X-Sender: hvdkooij@bastion.nl3155vj16.vanderkooij.org To: Tim cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: kinda off topic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-URL: http://www.caiw.nl/~hvdkooij/ X-Loop: Hugo.van.der.Kooij@caiw.nl MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/325 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Tim wrote: > I'm not enjoying the new list much b/c I can't get procmail to easily dump > all the ldp email to its own folder. How about using: --------B<--------B<-------- # # .procmailrc # PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/local/bin SHELL=/bin/sh LOCKTIMEOUT=60 MAILDIR=$HOME/mail LOGFILE=$HOME/.procmail.log :0 * ^Resent-From: ldp-(spec|discuss)@lists.(debian.org|linuxdoc.org) IN.LDP # ----- Multiples kill ----- :0 Wh: msgid.lock | formail -D 10000 $HOME/.procmail.msgid --------B<--------B<-------- Works fine here for quite same time. And Resent-From: seems the most reliable header one can choose for this list. Hugo. -- Hugo van der Kooij; Oranje Nassaustraat 16; 3155 VJ Maasland hvdkooij@caiw.nl http://home.kabelfoon.nl/~hvdkooij/ -------------------------------------------------------------- Use of any of my email addresses for unsollicited (commercial) email is a clear intrusion of my privacy and illegal! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id EAA19351 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 04:02:20 +1000 Received: (qmail 5511 invoked by uid 38); 5 Sep 1999 18:01:18 -0000 Resent-Date: 5 Sep 1999 18:01:18 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: mdw@bhikku.CS.Berkeley.EDU Message-Id: <199909051804.LAA27852@bhikku.CS.Berkeley.EDU> To: Tim cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org From: Matt Welsh Reply-To: Matt Welsh Subject: Re: Howto submission bounces In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 05 Sep 1999 10:14:03 CDT." Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 11:04:09 -0700 Sender: mdw@cs.berkeley.edu Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/339 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Tim writes: > > > I sent howto updates to: submit-howto@lists.linuxdoc.org and it bounced. > > So I'm now trying the old address: linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu > I conacted the list maintainer(s) a week ago and there has been no > creation of the submit-howto list and evidently no knowledge of it. I was under the impression that the correct address was ldp-submit@lists.linuxdoc.org. Could we have that alias created? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id CAA21153 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 02:41:34 +1000 Received: (qmail 5202 invoked by uid 38); 13 Sep 1999 16:41:24 -0000 Resent-Date: 13 Sep 1999 16:41:24 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: gferg@hoop.timonium.sgi.com From: "Greg Ferguson" Message-Id: <9909131248.ZM19831@hoop.timonium.sgi.com> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 12:48:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: Tim "Re: Kernel Hackers Guide" (Sep 10, 8:19pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.3 08feb96 MediaMail) To: Tim , ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Kernel Hackers Guide Cc: poet@linuxports.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/430 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org On Sep 10, 8:19pm, Tim wrote: > Subject: Re: Kernel Hackers Guide > Poet, > > check out: > > ftp://wallybox.cei.net/pub/Linux/khg.tar.gz > > This was something I picked up some time ago awaiting the final release. > I think this may have even been "published", or at least was its initial > intent. The version Tim points to is now available at: http://www.linuxdoc.org/LDP/khg/HyperNews/get/khg.html For reference purposes, I kept in the threaded discussion entries and the ability to view and navigate through them. However, the HyperNews functionality to edit or reply has been removed. This is essentially a static/archived snapshot of the KHG. A link to this Guide (and its accompanying gzip'ed download file) has been added back into: http://www.linuxdoc.org/docs.html ---- Ferg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id AAA22084 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:46:14 +1000 Received: (qmail 26982 invoked by uid 38); 18 Sep 1999 14:46:07 -0000 Resent-Date: 18 Sep 1999 14:46:07 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Message-Id: <199909181454.HAA06528@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com> From: "{poet}" Organization: CommandPrompt Software To: Tim Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 07:39:28 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: LDP bug-tracker Reply-to: poet@linuxports.com CC: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Priority: normal References: <199909170736.AA18938@lafn.org> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Resent-Message-ID: <6xVe7B.A.blG.vW643@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/483 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hello, The problem with NOT contacting the author directly is that changing the document without the authors permission is often copyright infringement. Although most documents allow modification it is not modification of the existing document. This means that we would end up with the MODEM- HOWTO and the MODEM-HOWTO.Bugfix1999. This would be a nightmare. Date forwarded: 18 Sep 1999 12:15:39 -0000 Date sent: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 07:04:25 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: LDP bug-tracker Forwarded by: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org > > What may be needed is someone that a reader can contact if he get's no > > response from the author/maintainer within a resonable amount of time. > > Thus I don't think we should be looking into any bug-tracking system. > > There are much more important things to do. > I had made the suggestion that we have an email address (or list) > available for reporting bugs, but it didn't fly over very well. I believe > one of the comments was that it should be handled directly, meaning on the > author should be contacted. > > But you bring up the point that I was trying to make......if that > author(s) does not respond, or better yet, the corrections are not made, > then nothing is accomplished and the time wasted is by that of the reader > trying to contact the author which is what we're all looking > for.....feedback. > > > Best Regards, > Tim > > -- > Linux HOWTO coordinator http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO > tjbynum@metalab.unc.edu, linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu (HOWTO's) > tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net (Home) > tbynum@rineco.com (Work) > http://wallybox.cei.net:5119/cgi-bin/pageme.cgi (Alpha Pager) > > D I P C > The system that enables you to write distributed programs.......the > easy way! > http://wallybox.cei.net/dipc/ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id AAA22098 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:48:15 +1000 Received: (qmail 28116 invoked by uid 38); 18 Sep 1999 14:48:06 -0000 Resent-Date: 18 Sep 1999 14:48:06 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Message-Id: <199909181456.HAA06540@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com> From: "{poet}" Organization: CommandPrompt Software To: Tim Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 07:41:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: linuxdoc.org: copyright and Manifesto Reply-to: poet@linuxports.com CC: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Priority: normal References: <19990916172117.B6135@albert.animats.net> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/484 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Personally I still think it is stupid that we allow LICENSING of documentation. The GPL is not a documentation license. People have stated that it will work for documentation, this may be true but it is still a little backwards.. Poet Date forwarded: 18 Sep 1999 12:01:03 -0000 Date sent: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 06:49:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: linuxdoc.org: copyright and Manifesto Forwarded by: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org > > > Just because someone takes over maintainership of a document I've worked on > > is no reason for my name to be removed from the copyright. That would breach > > the GPL where it specifically states that all copyright notices are to > > be retained. > There is no doubt....this would definately be a breach of the GPL. New > Maintainers should at no point ever remove the original author. The only > way I could ever see this happening is if the doc in question was ever > given an overhaul or completely re-written. I'm still not sure it warrant > removal of the original author, but I suppose if they had the consent of > the the author in question, then this would be legit. > > > Best Regards, > Tim > > -- > Linux HOWTO coordinator http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO > tjbynum@metalab.unc.edu, linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu (HOWTO's) > tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net (Home) > tbynum@rineco.com (Work) > http://wallybox.cei.net:5119/cgi-bin/pageme.cgi (Alpha Pager) > > D I P C > The system that enables you to write distributed programs.......the > easy way! > http://wallybox.cei.net/dipc/ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id NAA05423 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 13:42:38 +1000 Received: (qmail 20083 invoked by uid 38); 19 Sep 1999 03:42:29 -0000 Resent-Date: 19 Sep 1999 03:42:29 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: yan@mail.storm.ca Message-Id: <199909190342.XAA14152@mail.storm.ca> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Yves Bellefeuille" To: Tim Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 23:40:19 -0400 Subject: Re: Are we good enough ? Reply-to: yan@storm.ca CC: LDP discuss Priority: normal References: <199909180445.AAA15809@mail.storm.ca> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/495 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Tim wrote: > This is rather a harsh tone, but I'm sure it's not your intent. It's the tone of someone who wrote to Tim, Greg and Guylhem and tried to update his Mini How-To without success at least three times. > The update was sent to me in text format, and not of the required > format which is either sgml (preferred) or html. I sent the upgrade in both text and HTML format. I'm sending it again -- for the fourth time. > I sent an email stating this, but perhaps you never received it? Correct, I never received your message. Still, I wrote to you at least three times about this; did all three replies get lost? -- Yves Bellefeuille , Ottawa, Canada Francais / English / Esperanto Maintainer, Esperanto FAQ: http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq.html PGP key at the servers and at http://www.storm.ca/~yan/pgp.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id DAA09183 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 03:57:07 +1000 Received: (qmail 5711 invoked by uid 38); 19 Sep 1999 17:49:35 -0000 Resent-Date: 19 Sep 1999 17:49:34 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mr. Poet" X-Sender: jd@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com To: Tim cc: Yves Bellefeuille , LDP discuss , ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org, recipient list not shown: ; Subject: Re: Are we good enough ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/502 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org I wonder if this emailer is stripping the html LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Tim wrote: > > > I sent the upgrade in both text and HTML format. I'm sending it again -- > > for the fourth time. > Again....I only received the doc in text format. > > I've apologized for any delays.....that's all I can do. > > > Best Regards, > Tim > > -- > Linux HOWTO coordinator http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO > tjbynum@metalab.unc.edu, linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu (HOWTO's) > tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net (Home) > tbynum@rineco.com (Work) > http://wallybox.cei.net:5119/cgi-bin/pageme.cgi (Alpha Pager) > > D I P C > The system that enables you to write distributed programs.......the > easy way! > http://wallybox.cei.net/dipc/ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id PAA12753 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 15:50:11 +1000 Received: (qmail 1056 invoked by uid 38); 20 Sep 1999 05:49:58 -0000 Resent-Date: 20 Sep 1999 05:49:58 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: yan@mail.storm.ca Message-Id: <199909200549.BAA25868@mail.storm.ca> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Yves Bellefeuille" To: Tim Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 01:47:45 -0400 Subject: Re: Hard Disk Upgrade Mini How-To Reply-to: yan@storm.ca CC: LDP discuss , Konrad Hinsen Priority: normal References: <199909190346.XAA14317@mail.storm.ca> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/511 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Tim wrote: > I would never convert a doc *back* to text, as it is no longer an > acceptable format. > > I'll get what you have sent to me processed and uploaded today. > Perhaps then your tone will change and we can move on. The new version of the Mini How-To has now been posted. Thanks. I sent versions in both text and HTML formats. I specifically asked that the text version I sent be posted rather than converting the HTML version back to text. Unfortunately, it seems that the text version that was posted is not the version I sent, but rather that the HTML version was converted back to text. This is what I asked not be done, and what Tim said would never be done. I don't know why it happened; perhaps it was done automatically. I'm once again sending the text version, in a separate message. Can this version be posted? Thanks. (For those who are curious: The text version I prepared is at: http://www.storm.ca/~yan/Hard-Disk-Upgrade The text version that was posted is at: http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO/mini/Hard-Disk-Upgrade The posted version seems to be re-converted from HTML to text using Lynx.) Regards, -- Yves Bellefeuille , Ottawa, Canada Francais / English / Esperanto Maintainer, Esperanto FAQ: http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq.html PGP key at the servers and at http://www.storm.ca/~yan/pgp.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id GAA16817 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 06:39:31 +1000 Received: (qmail 24346 invoked by uid 38); 20 Sep 1999 20:39:20 -0000 Resent-Date: 20 Sep 1999 20:39:20 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: yan@mail.storm.ca Message-Id: <199909202038.QAA11721@mail.storm.ca> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Yves Bellefeuille" To: Tim Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:36:28 -0400 Subject: Re: Hard Disk Upgrade Mini How-To Reply-to: yan@storm.ca CC: LDP discuss Priority: normal References: <199909200549.BAA25868@mail.storm.ca> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/515 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > All html docs are converted back to txt via a Makefile that produces > all output. So, can I ask you to post the original text version rather than converting the HTML version back to text? The "original" version I maintain is in text. I then convert it to HTML when I send it to the LDP, since you require an HTML version. There's no point in converting the HTML back to text, at least in this case. By the way, I write all my HTML pages "by hand", inserting the codes manually. I think this gives much better results (and less bloat) than using a program to convert to HTML. -- Yves Bellefeuille , Ottawa, Canada Francais / English / Esperanto Maintainer, Esperanto FAQ: http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq.html PGP key at the servers and at http://www.storm.ca/~yan/pgp.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id JAA17655 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:22:26 +1000 Received: (qmail 11427 invoked by uid 38); 20 Sep 1999 23:22:21 -0000 Resent-Date: 20 Sep 1999 23:22:21 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: dranch@trinnet.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990920142841.008a3660@mail.trinnet.net> X-Sender: dranch@mail.trinnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:28:41 -0700 To: Tim , ldp-announce@lists.linuxdoc.org From: "David A. Ranch" Subject: Re: Document Updates Cc: ambrose@writeme.com In-Reply-To: <199909181622.LAA17971@wallybox.cei.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-announce@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4 X-Loop: ldp-announce@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-announce-request@lists.debian.org >This message has been 'automagically' posted. Hey Tim, Sigh.. I'm still trying to get the newest IP MASQ-mini HOWTO: 1. Updated to the LDP. The primary site is currently http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dranch/LINUX/ipmasq 2. Have the status changed from a Mini-HOWTO to a full HOWTO. Could you give me any eta since the current LDP IP Masq howto is very wrong. --David .----------------------------------------------------------------------------. | David A. Ranch - Linux/Networking/PC hardware dranch@trinnet.net | !---- ----! `----- For more detailed info, see http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dranch -----' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-announce-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id PAA21701 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:29:16 +1000 Received: (qmail 15497 invoked by uid 38); 29 Sep 1999 05:28:29 -0000 Resent-Date: 29 Sep 1999 05:28:28 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:38:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mr. Poet" X-Sender: jd@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com To: Tim cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org, ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org, recipient list not shown: ; Subject: Re: Final Farewell?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/655 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Imagine that, a member on this list finally speaking his mind to the truth. LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Tim wrote: > Hello to all, > > Let me just preface this by saying that these are my views and comments > and mine alone, not those of the LDP. I'm not asking for pity, nor a > shoulder to cry on. > > > > > > I've sat back and watched once again as my name and the job I do get > dragged through the mud. This time I can't and will not sit back and > watch this happen *again* and turn my back. > > As for the complaints and removing of documents , all I can say is this, > I'm sorry for the problems that occured and I'm sorry that he felt that he > needed to be 1) rude and 2) disrespectful not only to me, but all others > subscribed to the list. This is my personal opinion and not necessarily > those of others, so don't go blaming the LDP for the comments that I am > making. These are *not* the views of the LDP, these are my own personal > views and comments. Please don't confuse the two. > > Many times I have asked how I was doing, I've asked for suggestions and > assistance. Rarely if ever do I receive a comment one, but let one person > have a complaint (in a very imperfect world I might add) and the walls > just come crumbling down. > > Like it or not, the LDP has progressed and I have assisted in this > process. No one has once asked how the processing of HOWTOs actually > works or even cared enough to do so. Some discussions did take place, and > I did try to explain, but I honestly don't think anyone was listening (I > feel this a lot). > > I've asked for feedback from authors/maintainers and even made suggestions > that they get more involved. This was over a year ago (probably close to > 2) and no one had time or no one cared to respond at any length. I asked > if the authors/maintainers would like to assist in approving documents > submittals and I got 0% response.....that's right nothing. > > I've created pages for updates and for current projects to allow others to > know what's going on and to hopefully get them involved. Did this > accomplish anything? Honestly I don't know b/c no one has ever bothered > to comment on them. > > It seems that the ldp-discuss list (and others) has become nothing short > of a means of pulic humiliation and I'm not just talking about myself. > This is *not* what the list is for. Public bickering back and forth has > no place on this list. Sure, it may help you to get your point across, > but if that's all you want, then surely you could find a better means. > > I've even publicly made available my pager via a paging server. Do you > think I did this for kicks? It was done to give anyone who wanted > *direct* access to me for whatever reason they had that ability. I'm not > asking anyone to use it, but I did state that it was there to be used if > you needed it. > > I understand that a lot of time is spent by authors/maintainers updating > docs. But do you think the rest of us have no other life outside the LDP? > We all (I assume) are responsible adults and I find it a crying shame that > more of us don't act like it when presented with a public forum. > > It's not my nature to be a downer or have a negative attitude and I feel > that I've held my head high for good reason in regards to being the HOWTO > Coordinator. I'm not perfect, nor is the job I do, but I do take pride in > it and that should account for something. ??? > > As for the missed/lost docs that have recently been brought to > ldp-discuss, again I have apologized...publicly. > > There have been many new additions and many updates to the HOWTOs (I use > this generally I include mini-HOWTOs and FAQs) and to accuse me of > deliberately ignoring someone or deliberately setting their update aside > or basically just having better things to do with my time is unacceptable, > untrue and a complete disrespect to me and what I do. > > In the past (whether there were complaints or not) I asked if others were > happy with what I was doing. I've even asked if anyone would like me to > step down and look for someone else to take my place as the HOWTO > Cooridnator. It was rather quiet, but the comments that were made > appreciated what I was doing and asked that I hang in there. Where are > those folks now when push comes to shove?!? > > When you believe in something strong enough you'll do what you can to > survive and keep it going. This is how I felt (feel more often than not) > about the HOWTO Coordinator position and the LDP. > > I must say this.....the way the move (if that's what you want to call it) > from Metalab (formerly Sunsite) was handled was inexcusable. This I'm > afraid *is* a direct reflection on the LDP. I do not blame Guylhem for > how things were handled nor should anyone else. People did nothing but > complain about the way things were going and Guylhem asked for feedback > and as with me got little response and the majority of the responses were > not solutions but rather threads that turned into many lines of > nothingness, meaning that nothing was ever being resolved so he took > matters into his own hands. Was this not the reason that he was *voted* > into position? It's his job to deal with the flack and I think he's done > so. People may not have agreed with it, but there was action and in the > long run that's what we asked for. > > As for the Copyright/Licensing debate that's been going on (for how long > now?) I'm afraid it has gotten old and extremely tired. I think it's > great that we come up with something that we can *all* live with, but the > area seems to have been completely blurred between Copyright and > Licensing. And to think that we can at this time mandate something of this > sort is beyond me. The LDP is *not* in the position to mandate a matter > like this, at least not right now. My personal opinion is that > an unofficial "offical" manifesto should be written up and put out for > public display and scrutiny, and let's move on. What is in place now is > sufficient and has been for all these years with minor tweaking along the > way. I've always told authors to use what's in place if *they* are > comfortable with it....not me. If they choose to tweak it to *their* > liking then that is *their* perrogative. Please for the sake of the LDP > let this matter be put aside. Perhaps someone outside the LDP would be > more suitable for this task? > > As for the CVS matter, I will say this. *I* (and don't believe that > anyone else did) did not turn down Metalab there offer of CVS? As > a matter of fact, the one person (me) responsible for getting the updates > to Metalab has not even discussed the matter of CVS with anyone at > Metalab. Another mis-communication, I would say, but it's problems like > these that we're trying to improve on. Yes, I have been working on a CVS > solution, does that mean that I would not choose to use Metalab if their > services were offered, not only no, but heck no. I would gladly accept! > I am working on the finer details of the CVS and how things will be > handled. Everyone assumes that all these processes are magically > implemented, ok maybe that's not assumed, but it's definately the > impression left by many comments. To just throw all the doucment source > out there and made available via CVS won't solve anything if measures are > not put into place to protect the docs and their processing/updating? If > it's only a CVS that's needed/wanted then sure, gimme an hour or two. > This is not our goal! Long term solutions is the bottom-line. > > I have been preparing a revised QC manifesto that will be published by the > end of the week. I hope this will solve and/or answer many questions. My > main objective here is to give all authors/maintainers a means of tracking > progress. This along with the quality of work *will* be our main > objectives. And some sort of bug tracking will also be implemented. > > I have talked to Guylhem (not at length) about making my final comments to > ldp-discuss on all the uproar the past few days, so here I am. > Unfortunately he misunderstood and thought I was wanting to step down. > This was not my intent, but the thought has consumed me over the past 24+ > hours and perhaps his misunderstanding is something I should actually > consider at this point. > > If the LDP is suffering because of me then the matter should be addressed > and handled appropriately (respectively goes w/out saying). I will > entertain the idea of stepping down if it is in fact in the best interest > of the LDP. Linux has given me far too much to let my pride get in the > way of progress. > > As for disgruntled authors removing their documents from the LDP, just > doesn't sit well with me. Sure, if that's what they want....then let them > move on. I honestly can't believe this is the route they would choose to > take, but if it is......well perhaps they should. I do know this, if > every disgruntled Linux coder had the same views, we would *not* be having > this dicussion b/c there would be no Linux. To up and go taking your docs > with you is just plain childish. That is *not* directed at Vladimir, but > more to any author who feels this way. If I have personal comments for > any author, I'll do the repectful thing and personally make them.....not > publicly. > > Perhaps this is my undoing, but I honestly felt that something had to be > said. I have too much respect for everyone involved to just let it pass > and allow the discomfort that is present now to continue. I owe it to you > as well as myself to rectify any and all problems/complaints that are > directly related to me. > > Best Regards, > Tim > > -- > Linux HOWTO coordinator http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO > tjbynum@metalab.unc.edu, linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu (HOWTO's) > tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net (Home) > tbynum@rineco.com (Work) > http://wallybox.cei.net:5119/cgi-bin/pageme.cgi (Alpha Pager) > > D I P C > The system that enables you to write distributed programs.......the > easy way! > http://wallybox.cei.net/dipc/ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 08:57:09 +1000 (EST) From: terry@albert Subject: Re: Should we split mini HOWTOs? To: guylhem@oeil.qc.ca cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org In-Reply-To: <19990903215234.A523@victis.oeil.qc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII On 3 Sep, Guylhem Aznar wrote: > OTOH, mini HOWTOs like "VAIO+Linux" shouldn't be called HOWTOs, but > something like "Step By Step Guides", i.e. a precise guide for a precise > question. > > We should provide this kind of documents for all kind of precise > questions (even "Setting sendmail with RH6") for people who don't want > to read global HOWTOs, even if the guide is only 2 pages long, for some > very special topic ("Setting power-saving mode with Toshiba C110 > laptops"). This confuses my original understanding of what HOWTO documents were supposed to be and how they were differentiated from the Guides. The HOWTO documents are meant to be step-by-step instructions I thought. What we probably need is a document that describes the major differences between the major distributions ... covering the matters that commonly cause HOWTO authors to pull their hair out like how the rc files work, and versions of libc in use etc. I think the power saving example is exactly the right sort of thing to have in a Mini-HOWTO. Terry -- terry@albert.animats.net, terry@linux.org.au From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA25974 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 07:01:39 +1000 Received: (qmail 5649 invoked by uid 38); 3 Sep 1999 21:01:30 -0000 Resent-Date: 3 Sep 1999 21:01:30 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: joseph@cheek.com Sender: joseph@saltlake.cheek.com Message-ID: <37D0370A.169121D0@cheek.com> Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 14:00:59 -0700 From: Joseph Cheek Organization: Cheek Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61C-Caldera [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.9 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guylhem Aznar CC: LDP discuss Subject: Re: Should we split mini HOWTOs? References: <19990903215234.A523@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <_P5boB.A.IYB.qcD03@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/316 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org this is an idea that i have already started with "kb articles" at the linux knowledge base kbarticles site http://linuxkb.cheek.com/kbarticles/. i only have a few, but i already have people lined up and committed to writing more. i am willing to share what i have with the community [either cobranding my web site or making the db available to others], in return for the same sharing with me. of course, i also agree that specific articles on very specific topics are a good idea. Guylhem Aznar wrote: > Hi, > > I've read most of the responses to Slashdot article, and while I think > we have fixes for an heavy majority of the problems reported, I'm > concerned by some recurrent topic for which I had no plans right until > now : giving precise answers to precise questions. > > For exemple, someone reported : > > << > Could it be that with the 'userfriendly' distributions (RedHat, SuSe) > nowadays less people are interested in the whole story? That could be > another reason for lags in documentation. > > What we need is non-generic HOWTOs. Something which says "In Red Hat > 6, the sendmail configuration file is created from ___ and you are > supposed to modify ___ files. Changing your X fonts is done with ____", > etc. > >> > > Some weeks ago, we had long discussions about mini HOWTOs, we came to > the conclusion they should be considered as plain HOWTOs. > > I think mini HOWTOs like "Fax-Server" or the "Lilo+something" serie > (which is being rewritten by one of the new authors in one big HOWTO) > should be made plain HOWTOs since they address global topics. > > OTOH, mini HOWTOs like "VAIO+Linux" shouldn't be called HOWTOs, but > something like "Step By Step Guides", i.e. a precise guide for a precise > question. > > We should provide this kind of documents for all kind of precise > questions (even "Setting sendmail with RH6") for people who don't want > to read global HOWTOs, even if the guide is only 2 pages long, for some > very special topic ("Setting power-saving mode with Toshiba C110 > laptops"). > > These "Step By Step Guides" could be submitted like standard HOWTOs, > they would just go in a different directory, and be carefully indexed to > ease searching in a "knowledge base" > > I fear this might lead to vendor dependance for some documents, but we > could set strict submission policies, especially for the license (DGPL) > therefore Guides like "Setting sendmail with RH6" could be adapted to > "Setting sendmail with SlackWare" > > I'm very interested in the feedback, if we can agree I'd like to promote > these Guides. > It's only asking people who would not consider themselves as LDP authors > to take some hours to write a clear guide for some problem they have > already experienced and fixed. > > -- > Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org > Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem > Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca > Anywhere/Partout: guylhem-pager \@/ oeil.qc.ca > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature -- thanks! joe ___ ___ __ | |_ __ __ | |_ __ __ _____ * Joseph Cheek, Director / _)| \ / _) / _)| _) / _) / \ | | * joseph@cheek.com or ( (_ | | |( _)( _)| \ _ ( (_ ( () )| |_| | * (877) CHEEK.COM \__)|_|_| \__) \__)|_\_)(_) \__) \__/ |_| |_| * http://www.cheek.com/ Cheek Consulting, Seattle, provides Linux and Internet solutions linux * web commerce * html * java * perl * php * informix * mysql -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA26171 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 07:44:51 +1000 Received: (qmail 12072 invoked by uid 38); 3 Sep 1999 21:26:35 -0000 Resent-Date: 3 Sep 1999 21:26:34 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: olea@hispalinux.es Sender: olea@maria.ctv.es Message-ID: <37CE5BB4.F1239A77@hispalinux.es> Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 13:12:52 +0200 From: Ismael Olea Organization: Hispalinux X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [es] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15smp i686) X-Accept-Language: es-ES, es, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guylhem Aznar CC: LDP discuss Subject: Re: Should we split mini HOWTOs? References: <19990903215234.A523@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-Message-ID: <1TfL4C.A.c8C.K0D03@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/317 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Guylhem Aznar escribió: > OTOH, mini HOWTOs like "VAIO+Linux" shouldn't be called HOWTOs, but > something like "Step By Step Guides", :-? Why? > i.e. a precise guide for a precise > question. It's the definition of howto, isn't it? I think we must not classify docs neither by format or size, for example. This confuse readers and librarians. For docs talking about specific architectures hw/sw author must use the adecuate metadata. In our case it must be in the doc's title. Don't mind if a doc is short. It's ok if it's useful and well written. > These "Step By Step Guides" could be submitted like standard HOWTOs, > they would just go in a different directory, and be carefully indexed to > ease searching in a "knowledge base" If one day we develop an bibliographic system, the indexing will be an easy (automated?) task with the help of good metadata. Imo, until that day we must keep a simple doc management: an incorrect classification is almost as bad as haven't docs. -- A.Ismael Olea González olea@iname.com 2:345/108.9@fidonet.org El mundo debe empezar a tener miedo a un planeta DEF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:37:10 +1000 (EST) From: terry@albert Subject: Re: (no subject) To: guylhem@oeil.qc.ca cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org In-Reply-To: <19990905004914.H976@victis.oeil.qc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII On 5 Sep, Guylhem Aznar wrote: > Mini refers to size, while we should refer to specificity I've always interpreted 'mini' to be talking about scope rather than size. Terry -- terry@albert.animats.net, terry@linux.org.au From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id LAA13708 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 11:56:42 +1000 Received: (qmail 5507 invoked by uid 38); 5 Sep 1999 01:29:50 -0000 Resent-Date: 5 Sep 1999 01:29:50 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: joseph@cheek.com Sender: joseph@saltlake.cheek.com Message-ID: <37D1C771.B9AD3A1B@cheek.com> Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 18:29:21 -0700 From: Joseph Cheek Organization: Cheek Consulting X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61C-Caldera [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.9 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guylhem Aznar CC: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Should we split mini HOWTOs? References: <19990905004840.G976@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/333 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org i gather that the dgpl is the documentation gpl? where do i find a copy of it? a quick search of linuxdoc.org, opensource.org, and fsf.org failed to show me anything. Guylhem Aznar wrote: > On Fri, Sep 03, 1999 at 02:00:59PM -0700, Joseph Cheek wrote: > > this is an idea that i have already started with "kb articles" at the > > linux knowledge base kbarticles site > > http://linuxkb.cheek.com/kbarticles/. i only have a few, but i > > already have people lined up and committed to writing more. > > Interesting experience. > > > i am willing to share what i have with the community [either > > cobranding my web site or making the db available to others], in > > return for the same sharing with me. > > These articles should be released under DGPL, then you could add a > pointer to your site in a "non technical section". > > -- > Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org > Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem > Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca > Anywhere/Partout: guylhem-pager \@/ oeil.qc.ca > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature -- thanks! joe ___ ___ __ | |_ __ __ | |_ __ __ _____ * Joseph Cheek, Director / _)| \ / _) / _)| _) / _) / \ | | * joseph@cheek.com or ( (_ | | |( _)( _)| \ _ ( (_ ( () )| |_| | * (877) CHEEK.COM \__)|_|_| \__) \__)|_\_)(_) \__) \__/ |_| |_| * http://www.cheek.com/ Cheek Consulting, Seattle, provides Linux and Internet solutions linux * web commerce * html * java * perl * php * informix * mysql -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id AAA26301 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:48:10 +1000 Received: (qmail 25852 invoked by uid 38); 6 Sep 1999 14:47:56 -0000 Resent-Date: 6 Sep 1999 14:47:56 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: psj@mustec.eu.org Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 15:43:18 +0100 (GMT) From: P Jenner To: Guylhem Aznar cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: LDP-MetaLab status & CVS In-Reply-To: <19990903160748.A889@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/344 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Guylhem Aznar wrote: > I was wondering : is there still a strong demand for CVS? I believe there is. A large number of people would like to have CVS read access to the latest LDP sources so they can both use them to build documents but also (and obviously more importantly) have the ability to make a positive contribution to the latest working revisions of LDP documents via the author. Paul ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul S Jenner GNU/Linux Advocate E-mail: psj@mustec.eu.org WWW: http://www.mustec.eu.org/~psj/ UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL IS NOT WELCOME AT THIS ADDRESS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id AAA26327 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:53:15 +1000 Received: (qmail 30206 invoked by uid 38); 6 Sep 1999 14:53:08 -0000 Resent-Date: 6 Sep 1999 14:53:08 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: psj@mustec.eu.org Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 15:48:33 +0100 (GMT) From: P Jenner To: Guylhem Aznar cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Should we split mini HOWTOs? In-Reply-To: <19990903215234.A523@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/345 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Guylhem Aznar wrote: > Some weeks ago, we had long discussions about mini HOWTOs, we came to > the conclusion they should be considered as plain HOWTOs. I agree. The distinction is pretty weak when it comes to finding information as an LDP user. It only really seems to serve to confuse in my experience. > OTOH, mini HOWTOs like "VAIO+Linux" shouldn't be called HOWTOs, but > something like "Step By Step Guides", i.e. a precise guide for a precise > question. > These "Step By Step Guides" could be submitted like standard HOWTOs, > they would just go in a different directory, and be carefully indexed to > ease searching in a "knowledge base" Also a good idea in the eyes of someone who has used such resources. A "knowledge base" as opposed to a hierarchy of documents is a more felxible and usable approach. > I fear this might lead to vendor dependance for some documents, but we > could set strict submission policies, especially for the license (DGPL) > therefore Guides like "Setting sendmail with RH6" could be adapted to > "Setting sendmail with SlackWare" Again I agree. Vendor dependence should definitely be avoided but if people are having problems setting up sendmail under RH6 and someone has written a useful and open explanation, why should users of the LDP be denied it? As you say, an open licence also allows easy modification for other vendors anyway. Paul ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul S Jenner GNU/Linux Advocate E-mail: psj@mustec.eu.org WWW: http://www.mustec.eu.org/~psj/ UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL IS NOT WELCOME AT THIS ADDRESS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id EAA14931 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 04:42:48 +1000 Received: (qmail 14250 invoked by uid 38); 9 Sep 1999 18:41:34 -0000 Resent-Date: 9 Sep 1999 18:41:34 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: pjones@metalab.unc.edu X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: pjones owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 14:41:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Jones X-Sender: pjones@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Guylhem Aznar cc: LDP discuss , Jonathan Magid , Don Sizemore Subject: Re: Local LDPs In-Reply-To: <19990908215648.B446@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/355 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org just so US isn't automatically the default domain--afterall we might have special requirements too someday (or even now). On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Guylhem Aznar wrote: > ========================================= > Local LDP : US (United States of American) > - site : http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP > - mailing list : ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org > - leader email : pjones@metalab.unc.edu > ========================================= > > For exemple : > > Local LDP : pt (portuguese) > - site : http://www.poli.org > - mailing list : I-don-t-know@poli.org > - leader : Alfredo Palace > > -- > Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org > Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem > Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca > Anywhere/Partout: guylhem-pager \@/ oeil.qc.ca > ========================================================================== Paul Jones "We must protect our precious bodily fluids!" General Jack D Ripper http://MetaLab.unc.edu/pjones/ at the Site Formerly Known As SunSITE.unc.edu pjones@MetaLab.unc.edu voice: (919) 962-7600 fax: (919) 962-8071 =========================================================================== -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id WAA19792 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 22:12:52 +1000 Received: (qmail 28018 invoked by uid 38); 10 Sep 1999 12:12:43 -0000 Resent-Date: 10 Sep 1999 12:12:43 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: psj@mustec.eu.org Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:07:03 +0100 (GMT) From: P Jenner To: Guylhem Aznar cc: LDP discuss Subject: Re: QC draft In-Reply-To: <19990910001209.A20181@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/359 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org I agree with the foundation of a QC group and its aims. However I am slightly worried about how the implementation of the mainifesto may impact community quality control. One of the main strengths of the Open Source movement (with docs as well as code) is its ability to harness the energies of the community to improve what is out there. I do not think this model should be forgotten when it comes to quality control and I should emphasise that whatever QC exists within the LDP organisation the best QC is the community. Therefore community additions and modifications should be given as much weight and consideration as official QC ones, such community submissions should be facilitated and encouraged as they are so successfully with Open Source code (look at the success of the GNOME project for the best template around) and if QC modifications are consistently rejected by the community then that community should be respected - after all that is who we do this for. Comments? Paul ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul S Jenner GNU/Linux Advocate E-mail: psj@mustec.eu.org WWW: http://www.mustec.eu.org/~psj/ UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL IS NOT WELCOME AT THIS ADDRESS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id DAA21334 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 03:58:06 +1000 Received: (qmail 6925 invoked by uid 38); 10 Sep 1999 17:56:49 -0000 Resent-Date: 10 Sep 1999 17:56:49 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:06:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mr. Poet" X-Sender: jd@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com To: Guylhem Aznar cc: LDP discuss , ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org, recipient list not shown: ; Subject: Re: Local LDPs In-Reply-To: <19990910134122.B2470@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/363 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Please let me know when all the pointers are live and I will add an area to the website for regional LDP's. Poet Development in Real Time LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org LDP - Howto Co-Coordinator Consultants - VAR - Commercial - Networking - WWW/Intranet On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Guylhem Aznar wrote: > On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 09:56:48PM +0200, Guylhem Aznar wrote: > > The following local LDPs have registered : > > fr, es, it, de, sl, kr, id, jp, hr, sb, gk, pt, br, au > > it, de, sl, kr, hr, sb, gk, br, au should fill in the form. > > -- > Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org > Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem > Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca > Anywhere/Partout: guylhem-pager \@/ oeil.qc.ca > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA10236 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 07:03:26 +1000 Received: (qmail 23939 invoked by uid 38); 16 Sep 1999 21:03:12 -0000 Resent-Date: 16 Sep 1999 21:03:12 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: pjones@metalab.unc.edu X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: pjones owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:03:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Jones X-Sender: pjones@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Guylhem Aznar cc: LDP discuss Subject: Re: Are we good enough ? In-Reply-To: <19990916100646.B10996@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/460 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org just a note to say that i love the look of the new LDP pages and I can actually find more stuff that I'm after thanks, I think, to deeper searching. let us know what more we can do to help out at our end. ========================================================================== Paul Jones "We must protect our precious bodily fluids!" General Jack D Ripper http://MetaLab.unc.edu/pjones/ at the Site Formerly Known As SunSITE.unc.edu pjones@MetaLab.unc.edu voice: (919) 962-7600 fax: (919) 962-8071 =========================================================================== -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id BAA22422 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 01:58:53 +1000 Received: (qmail 11674 invoked by uid 38); 18 Sep 1999 15:56:25 -0000 Resent-Date: 18 Sep 1999 15:56:25 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: bf347@lafn.org Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 08:55:55 -0700 Message-Id: <199909181555.AA19405@lafn.org> From: bf347@lafn.org (David Lawyer) To: guylhem@oeil.qc.ca Subject: Re: Translations (to English?) Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Reply-To: bf347@lafn.org Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/488 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org David Lawyer wrote: > but we have mini-howtos on DSL and Cable modems in English. Guyhlem wrote: > >Could you include them in the mini HOWTO ? > I think you mean merge the HOWTOs re modems. I don't think merger is a good idea in this case. Having them separate splits up the work. Smaller howtos also download faster and put less of a load on the net. Even where there is considerable overlap, it's often better not to merge. For example, both Text-Terminal-HOWTO and Modem-HOWTO have info on the serial port. But the emphasis is different since terminals may need to configure parity while modems don't, etc. Thus it's easier for the reader to have 2 different documents with different emphasis on the common topics. David Lawyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id DAA09177 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 03:56:59 +1000 Received: (qmail 5629 invoked by uid 38); 19 Sep 1999 17:49:33 -0000 Resent-Date: 19 Sep 1999 17:49:32 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 10:52:59 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mr. Poet" X-Sender: jd@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com To: Guylhem Aznar cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: linuxdoc.org: copyright and Manifesto In-Reply-To: <19990919002258.A973@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <7DC-kD.A.vWB.qIS53@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/501 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hello, I don't think we should "favor" any license/copyright. We should only have a set of conditions that any document that is part of the LDP must meet. Beyond that any author should be free to do what he/she/it wishes in regards to their document. Poet LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Guylhem Aznar wrote: > On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 07:41:26AM -0700, {poet} wrote: > > Personally I still think it is stupid that we allow LICENSING of > > documentation. The GPL is not a documentation license. People have > > stated that it will work for documentation, this may be true but it is > > still a little backwards.. > > We asked RMS to write a DGPL, it will be ready in a near future. > > I think we should prefer it to any other license. > > However, each author would be free to choose any other license, we could > just recommand DGPL. > > -- > Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org > Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem > Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca > Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor.org > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id PAA19262 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:04:11 +1000 Received: (qmail 7656 invoked by uid 38); 21 Sep 1999 05:03:57 -0000 Resent-Date: 21 Sep 1999 05:03:57 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: jim@jimpick.com Sender: jim@pepper.jimpick.com To: Guylhem Aznar Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org, Lars Wirzenius Subject: Updating Internic info for linuxdoc.org X-Url: http://www.jimpick.com/ From: Jim Pick Date: 20 Sep 1999 22:02:58 -0700 Message-ID: <87yae06em5.fsf@pepper.jimpick.com> Lines: 270 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070095 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.95) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/524 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hi Guylhem, (I've cc:'d to the ldp-discuss list and Lars so that everything is out in the open) Since you are the new leader of the LDP, we should update the authoritative contact record for the linuxdoc.org domain so that it lists you, and not Lars. If you could fill out the blank lines on the form (marked "X"), I can send the form into hostmaster@internic.net to make the changes. (or you can send the form in yourself) I've also added on a new nameserver (cosmos.jimpick.com) for some additional redundancy. Cheers, - Jim ---------------------------------------------------- This is the Domain Name Registration Agreement you recently created. In order to complete this modification, YOU MUST E-MAIL THIS FORM TO: hostmaster@internic.net After you e-mail this form, you should receive an auto-reply with a tracking number. You must use that number in the Subject of any future messages you send regarding this registration action. Once this registration action is completed you will receive a notification via e-mail. [ URL http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/domain ] [ 03/98 ] [ URL ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/domain-template.txt ] [ 03/98 ] ******* Please DO NOT REMOVE Version Number or Sections A-Q ******** Domain Version Number: 4.0 ******* Email completed agreement to hostmaster@internic.net ******* NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION AGREEMENT A. Introduction. This domain name registration agreement ("Registration Agreement") is submitted to NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. ("NSI") for the purpose of applying for and registering a domain name on the Internet. If this Registration Agreement is accepted by NSI, and a domain name is registered in NSI's domain name database and assigned to the Registrant, Registrant ("Registrant") agrees to be bound by the terms of this Registration Agreement and the terms of NSI's Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Dispute Policy") which is incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Registration Agreement. This Registration Agreement shall be accepted at the offices of NSI. B. Fees and Payments. 1) Registration or renewal (re-registration) date through March 31, 1998: Registrant agrees to pay a registration fee of One Hundred United States Dollars (US) as consideration for the registration of each new domain name or Fifty United States Dollars (US) to renew (re-register) an existing registration. 2) Registration or renewal date on and after April 1, 1998: Registrant agrees to pay a registration fee of Seventy United States Dollars (US) as consideration for the registration of each new domain name or the applicable renewal (re-registration) fee (currently Thirty-Five United States Dollars (US)) at the time of renewal (re-registration). 3) Period of Service: The non-refundable fee covers a period of two (2) years for each new registration, and one (1) year for each renewal, and includes any permitted modification(s) to the domain name record during the covered period. 4) Payment: Payment is due to Network Solutions within thirty (30) days from the date of the invoice. C. Dispute Policy. Registrant agrees, as a condition to submitting this Registration Agreement, and if the Registration Agreement is accepted by NSI, that the Registrant shall be bound by NSI's current Dispute Policy. The current version of the Dispute Policy may be found at the InterNIC Registration Services web site: "http://www.netsol.com/rs/dispute-policy.html". D. Dispute Policy Changes or Modifications. Registrant agrees that NSI, in its sole discretion, may change or modify the Dispute Policy, incorporated by reference herein, at any time. Registrant agrees that Registrant's maintaining the registration of a domain name after changes or modifications to the Dispute Policy become effective constitutes Registrant's continued acceptance of these changes or modifications. Registrant agrees that if Registrant considers any such changes or modifications to be unacceptable, Registrant may request that the domain name be deleted from the domain name database. E. Disputes. Registrant agrees that, if the registration of its domain name is challenged by any third party, the Registrant will be subject to the provisions specified in the Dispute Policy. F. Agents. Registrant agrees that if this Registration Agreement is completed by an agent for the Registrant, such as an ISP or Administrative Contact/Agent, the Registrant is nonetheless bound as a principal by all terms and conditions herein, including the Dispute Policy. G. Limitation of Liability. Registrant agrees that NSI shall have no liability to the Registrant for any loss Registrant may incur in connection with NSI's processing of this Registration Agreement, in connection with NSI's processing of any authorized modification to the domain name's record during the covered period, as a result of the Registrant's ISP's failure to pay either the initial registration fee or renewal fee, or as a result of the application of the provisions of the Dispute Policy. Registrant agrees that in no event shall the maximum liability of NSI under this Agreement for any matter exceed Five Hundred United States Dollars (US). H. Indemnity. Registrant agrees, in the event the Registration Agreement is accepted by NSI and a subsequent dispute arises with any third party, to indemnify and hold NSI harmless pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in the Dispute Policy. I. Breach. Registrant agrees that failure to abide by any provision of this Registration Agreement or the Dispute Policy may be considered by NSI to be a material breach and that NSI may provide a written notice, describing the breach, to the Registrant. If, within thirty (30) days of the date of mailing such notice, the Registrant fails to provide evidence, which is reasonably satisfactory to NSI, that it has not breached its obligations, then NSI may delete Registrant's registration of the domain name. Any such breach by a Registrant shall not be deemed to be excused simply because NSI did not act earlier in response to that, or any other, breach by the Registrant. J. No Guaranty. Registrant agrees that, by registration of a domain name, such registration does not confer immunity from objection to either the registration or use of the domain name. K. Warranty. Registrant warrants by submitting this Registration Agreement that, to the best of Registrant's knowledge and belief, the information submitted herein is true and correct, and that any future changes to this information will be provided to NSI in a timely manner according to the domain name modification procedures in place at that time. Breach of this warranty will constitute a material breach. L. Revocation. Registrant agrees that NSI may delete a Registrant's domain name if this Registration Agreement, or subsequent modification(s) thereto, contains false or misleading information, or conceals or omits any information NSI would likely consider material to its decision to approve this Registration Agreement. M. Right of Refusal. NSI, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to refuse to approve the Registration Agreement for any Registrant. Registrant agrees that the submission of this Registration Agreement does not obligate NSI to accept this Registration Agreement. Registrant agrees that NSI shall not be liable for loss or damages that may result from NSI's refusal to accept this Registration Agreement. N. Severability. Registrant agrees that the terms of this Registration Agreement are severable. If any term or provision is declared invalid, it shall not affect the remaining terms or provisions which shall continue to be binding. O. Entirety. Registrant agrees that this Registration Agreement and the Dispute Policy is the complete and exclusive agreement between Registrant and NSI regarding the registration of Registrant's domain name. This Registration Agreement and the Dispute Policy supersede all prior agreements and understandings, whether established by custom, practice, policy, or precedent. P. Governing Law. Registrant agrees that this Registration Agreement shall be governed in all respects by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, United States of America. By submitting this Registration Agreement, Registrant consents to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. If there is no jurisdiction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, then jurisdiction shall be in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Fairfax, Virginia. Q. This is Domain Name Registration Agreement Version Number 4.0. This Registration Agreement is only for registrations under top-level domains: COM, ORG, NET, and EDU. By completing and submitting this Registration Agreement for consideration and acceptance by NSI, the Registrant agrees that he/she has read and agrees to be bound by A through P above. Authorization 0a. (N)ew (M)odify (D)elete.........: M Name Registration 0b. Auth Scheme.....................: MAIL-FROM 0c. Auth Info.......................: 1. Comments........................: 2. Complete Domain Name............: linuxdoc.org Organization Using Domain Name 3a. Organization Name................: Linux Documentation Project 3b. Street Address..................: X 3c. City............................: X 3d. State...........................: PQ 3e. Postal Code.....................: X 3f. Country.........................: CA Administrative Contact 4a. NIC Handle (if known)...........: 4b. (I)ndividual (R)ole?............: Individual 4c. Name (Last, First)..............: Guylhem Aznar 4d. Organization Name...............: Linux Documentation Project 4e. Street Address..................: X 4f. City............................: X 4g. State...........................: PQ 4h. Postal Code.....................: X 4i. Country.........................: CA 4j. Phone Number....................: X 4k. Fax Number......................: X 4l. E-Mailbox.......................: guylhem@oeil.qc.ca Technical Contact 5a. NIC Handle (if known)...........: JP1946 5b. (I)ndividual (R)ole?............: Individual 5c. Name(Last, First)...............: 5d. Organization Name...............: 5e. Street Address..................: 5f. City............................: 5g. State...........................: 5h. Postal Code.....................: 5i. Country.........................: 5j. Phone Number....................: 5k. Fax Number......................: 5l. E-Mailbox.......................: Billing Contact 6a. NIC Handle (if known)...........: JP1946 6b. (I)ndividual (R)ole?............: Individual 6c. Name (Last, First)..............: 6d. Organization Name...............: 6e. Street Address..................: 6f. City............................: 6g. State...........................: 6h. Postal Code.....................: 6i. Country.........................: 6j. Phone Number....................: 6k. Fax Number......................: 6l. E-Mailbox.......................: Prime Name Server 7a. Primary Server Hostname.........: TIA.JIMPICK.COM 7b. Primary Server Netaddress.......: 204.209.212.111 Secondary Name Server(s) 8a. Secondary Server Hostname.......: CA.MOBILEDNS.NET 8b. Secondary Server Netaddress.....: 24.112.120.187 8a. Secondary Server Hostname..: cosmos.jimpick.com 8b. Secondary Server Netaddress: 139.142.87.223 END OF AGREEMENT For instructions, please refer to: "http://www.networksolutions.com/help/changes/inst_mod.html" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id UAA27398 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:41:20 +1000 Received: (qmail 27081 invoked by uid 38); 22 Sep 1999 10:40:50 -0000 Resent-Date: 22 Sep 1999 10:40:50 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: andrea@linux.it Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 17:12:47 +0200 From: Andrea Fanfani To: Guylhem Aznar Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Corel Debian Message-ID: <19990922171247.C200@akela> References: <19990921112822.A956@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <19990922011907.C288@akela> <19990922003629.A1215@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hQiwHBbRI9kgIhsi" User-Agent: Mutt/1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: <19990922003629.A1215@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Resent-Message-ID: <_pIHyD.A.ymG.xIL63@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/539 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --hQiwHBbRI9kgIhsi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 12:36:29AM +0200, Guylhem Aznar wrote: [...] > That's why I asked it for the LDP, not for a single person. >=20 No, simply because (probably) there will some changes in the license, because everybody are waiting a clarification. Regards=20 Andrea --=20 Andrea Fanfani andrea@debian.org andrea@linux.it --hQiwHBbRI9kgIhsi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE36PHvLGCPReZDN/MRATRnAJ4pV0gI+8ego02nluQJroMJw2fdowCePAzp CFN/jSsrnP5mClpu85j2iPo= =iSU2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hQiwHBbRI9kgIhsi-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id FAA04707 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 05:51:43 +1000 Received: (qmail 22280 invoked by uid 38); 26 Sep 1999 19:51:36 -0000 Resent-Date: 26 Sep 1999 19:51:36 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: apharris@burrito.onshore.com Sender: apharris@burrito.onshore.com To: Guylhem Aznar Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: why sgmltools being unmaintained isn't so much of a problem References: <19990926182950.E1752@victis.oeil.qc.ca> From: Adam Di Carlo Date: 26 Sep 1999 15:51:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: Guylhem Aznar's message of "Sun, 26 Sep 1999 18:29:50 +0200" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.070096 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.96) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/583 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Content-Length: 0 Lines: 18 Guylhem Aznar writes: > The SGMLtools we use are unmaintained :-( Assuming folks are able to compile/install the sgml toolchain itself, the need for SGMLtools honestly isn't that great. After all, the toolchain is shipped as RedHat packages (by Mark Gallassi) and as official Debian packages (esp. see my 'task-sgml' metapackge which should pull everything in). Now, once we have all that going, the only benefit of SGMLtools is the 'sgmltools' script, which can very easily be replaced by some standard makefile suffix rules. So why all the hand-wringing about SGMLtools? -- .....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com..... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id QAA07894 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:04:30 +1000 Received: (qmail 21536 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 06:03:47 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 06:03:47 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: bf347@lafn.org Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 23:03:26 -0700 Message-Id: <199909270603.AA01352@lafn.org> From: bf347@lafn.org (David Lawyer) To: guylhem@oeil.qc.ca Subject: Re: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)) Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Reply-To: bf347@lafn.org Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/598 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > >You have ; I'll try to explain how HOWTOs should be submitted now :=20 >any new HOWTO or updated HOWTO *must* be sent to ldp-submit ml. > >On this list, many ppl receive them, therefore delivery problems are >avoided. > >If Tim receive no negative feedback by QC, he can include them ; if they >aren't processed say 1 week later, our webmasters will add a copy to the >'incoming' section of linuxdoc.org (Joshua, could you add a link on the >main page ?) > >Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org I think that waiting one week is way too long for a small revision to a HOWTO. You should have a password/signature system and put them onsite immediately. The only docs that should be held for QC are first-time submissions or when a new maintainer first takes over a doc and makes significant changes. Other docs should undergo QC when they are already posted at the LDP sites so that no delay is introduced. The person doing the QC should hopefully understand the topic so they can spot mistakes. It should be pointed out that "incoming" means to be posted to the LDP and mirror sites. There should also be another 'incoming' section for docs waiting for QC. David Lawyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id QAA07917 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:08:27 +1000 Received: (qmail 25504 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 06:08:19 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 06:08:19 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: bf347@lafn.org Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 23:08:04 -0700 Message-Id: <199909270608.AA01702@lafn.org> From: bf347@lafn.org (David Lawyer) To: guylhem@oeil.qc.ca Subject: Re: Help compiling SGML Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Reply-To: bf347@lafn.org Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/599 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > >Guylhem Aznar wrote: >* : current manifesto is a bit old, and should be updated/fixed. >David, do you have time to update it, following the ideas you >previously gave here ? (we *need* a LDP license guide) OK, I'll get to work on it. David Lawyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:04:54 +1000 (EST) From: terry@albert Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) To: guylhem@oeil.qc.ca cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org In-Reply-To: <19990928112021.B1019@victis.oeil.qc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII On 28 Sep, Guylhem Aznar wrote: > Who agrees with Joshua idea (2 month/30 days/60 days, i.e. letting some > copyright to the LDP to ensure future updates) ? A definite NO. The LDP cannot hold copyright to anything, it doesn't exist as a legal entity. In any case, the whole point of using free licenses is specifically to allow *anyone* at any time to pick them up and improve on them. It is unnecessary to add any such draconian rules if the document licenses allow freedom. > Who disagrees and think all copyrights should be kept by each author ? I think these are two seperate questions, not flip sides of the same one. There is the question of "ownership" ie copyright, and there is the question of license terms. They're different things. > There will not be any arbitrar decision. It will be arbitrary. What are the terms of the vote? How will it work? What happens to the will of the majority of authors who either aren't subscribed to this list, don't have time to follow the discussion, or are too busy to answer before someone decides the (unstated) voting period has ended? Terry -- terry@albert.animats.net, terry@linux.org.au From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id DAA11196 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:53:24 +1000 Received: (qmail 2964 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 17:53:07 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 17:53:07 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: djb@redhat.com Message-Id: <199909271752.NAA03210@chef.meridian.redhat.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: Guylhem Aznar cc: "Mr. Poet" , Vladimir Vuksan , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) In-reply-to: <19990926182334.C1752@victis.oeil.qc.ca> from Guylhem Aznar on Sun, 26 Sep 1999 18:23:34 +0200. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:52:42 -0400 From: Donnie Barnes Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/609 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > > We are also working on producing an online disccusion area plus licensing > > issues. > > A new LDP manifesto with a license guide will be written. I suppose we should identify problems with the current manifesto before re-writing it. Some here have problems with it, others (like myself) like the current one. I guess the new leader wins? I personally don't care for that structure. I still feel that any license that conforms to the current manifesto is fine for the LDP. If you require a single license *or* require that the license allow document modification by third parties, I will no longer consider contributing LDP documentation. (No, I haven't done much lately, but I certainly wouldn't consider doing more in the future, either.) We've had these arguments a gazillion times. The LDP was originally setup more as a set of tools for writing documentation as well as an archive for the things that were produced. That allowed the LDP to enjoy great success in having *the* largest volume of works collected in one place that were *freely redistributable*. Your changes will move the LDP more into the realm of a tightly controlled project with a much more narrow agenda and likely less works available for consumption. Sure, they might have better QC, but they may also leave things unanswered because the document that did have the answers didn't fit the LDP criteria. I think that's a shame. --Donnie -- Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com djb@donniebarnes.com "Bah." Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. V. Bats, when dipped in batter and deep fried, still taste pretty bad. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id GAA11985 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 06:28:09 +1000 Received: (qmail 26430 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 20:25:55 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 20:25:55 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: joseph@cheek.com From: "Joseph Cheek" To: "Guylhem Aznar" Cc: "ldp discussion list" Subject: RE: dgpl status? Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:25:16 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <19990926175752.D1646@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/616 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hi guylhem, Comments below... thanks! joe cheek.com * Joseph Cheek, Director joseph@cheek.com or (206) 282-2892 or http://www.cheek.com/ Cheek Consulting, Seattle, provides Linux and Internet solutions linux * web commerce * html * java * perl * php * informix * mysql -----Original Message----- From: Guylhem Aznar [mailto:guylhem@oeil.qc.ca] Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 8:58 AM To: Joseph Cheek Subject: Re: dgpl status? On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 03:55:53PM -0700, Joseph Cheek wrote: > you sent me a copy of the dgpl a few weeks ago, thanks. has that been > approved/ratified yet? do any submissions to the ldp need to be under Sorry, it is not finished. [joseph cheek] ok, no problem... > that license? it appears the new web site still shows old licensing > information. I'd prefer new submissions to be released under 'DGPL v1.0 or greater' because it will keep documentation free while protecting your rights as an author. > think the relationship i would like to have between the linuxkb and the > ldp would be a peer-to-peer relationship where we share content in both > directions but are but considered subservient in either direction -- it > appears to me that i can either use ldp stuff for free [beer and speech] > or i can contribute as a member of ldp for free [beer and speech] but i > cannot work alongside the ldp. i would like to share my content with > the ldp but not become a contributor whereby the linuxkb becomes a > subset of the ldp. You should discuss this on the list, you're not the first one to report this ; [joseph cheek] are any others interested in this type of arrangement between themselves and the ldp? however please consider you could get more readers (we would sponsor it, link it...) while keeping *total* control. [joseph cheek] ...by doing what? By becoming an ldp author? By becoming an ldp peer? By becoming an ldp leech? Not quite sure what you mean here. Please help me understand what you mean. Sooner or later the mini HOWTOs will have to evoluate in a kind of 'LDP knowledge base', [joseph cheek] fine... and that could cause problems with your linuxkb. [joseph cheek] only if we have not reached some type of arrangement by that time. I'd actually love to have some type of content-sharing agreement with the ldp, right now I'm just leeching your stuff but not really contributing back [the only way it seems I can, now, is by becoming an author and maintaining a howto or minihowto, as I understand it. [joseph cheek] I'd much rather 1] provide real-world feedback on the content of your howto's based on feedback I get from the linuxkb, 2] contribute changes [suggestions for improvement, rather, I don't want to step on the author's toes] to the ldp - I can do this an an author-by-author basis or work-by-work now, but it would be great to have some centralized authority to at least submit these to, and 3] provide some of our original content to the ldp [kbarticles, most likely]. [joseph cheek] in order for me to do this, all I need to start is a "yes, we would like that too" from the ldp. Then we could agree on terms, what format you want the data in [sgmltools?], how to get it to you, etc. I am in the process of negotiating content deals with other linux-oriented web sites, primarily back-end db sharing, but I expect they would love to give you content in a manner that you could digest it also. Perhaps I should write a linuxkb.db->sgml.ldp converter, and then I wouldn't have to use sgmltools... just a thought. [joseph cheek] in return I would get the benefit of not having to reinvent your content to fit my site, not having to maintain two different versions of the same content so that I could contribute it as an ldp author, and perhaps you would be able to use some of my content either verbatim or included in the ldp. [joseph cheek] I expect that there are others that would love to contribute content to the ldp, they would be ecstatic to do so, but not as a single-author/per-work basis. I can't really speak for others, tho. Thanks for reading this far 8-). -- Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA12492 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:51:51 +1000 Received: (qmail 14705 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 21:51:43 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 21:51:43 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: vuksan@cs.unm.edu Sender: vuksan@cs.unm.edu Message-ID: <37EFE6D5.C95B1C42@cs.unm.edu> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 15:51:17 -0600 From: Vladimir Vuksan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.10 i686) X-Accept-Language: hr, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guylhem Aznar , LDP discuss Subject: Re: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)) References: <19990927010258.A4503@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <19990927213432.A3665@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/622 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Guylhem Aznar wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 08:17:23AM -0600, Vladimir Vuksan wrote: > > > > That sounds great but how do I pull my documents off LDP ? > > > > > > Do you want to remove your documents from the LDP ? > > > > Yes I would like to remove my documents from LDP. > > Then please give us a list, we'll remove them and : > > - try to find other volunteers to rewrite these documents from scratch > if you are the original author > > - update from previous version if you are a maintainer > > With this example, I think we really need a special clause to the > manifesto to leave some rights to the LDP if an author want to take his > document off :-( The two mini-HOWTOs in question are Cable Modem mini-HOWTO and DHCP mini-HOWTO. Let me know once you removed them. I plan to host them on my own web site and likely through the OSWG's documentation project. Take care, Vladimir -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id AAA17119 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:35:04 +1000 Received: (qmail 30034 invoked by uid 38); 28 Sep 1999 14:32:52 -0000 Resent-Date: 28 Sep 1999 14:32:52 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: djb@redhat.com Message-Id: <199909281432.KAA01504@chef.meridian.redhat.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: Guylhem Aznar cc: "Mr. Poet" , Vladimir Vuksan , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) In-reply-to: <19990927214735.C3665@victis.oeil.qc.ca> from Guylhem Aznar on Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:47:35 +0200. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:32:28 -0400 From: Donnie Barnes Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/636 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > He's a short sum up : > - the document must be released under a free license (with details in > the new manifesto, a license guide, and a set of license) > - the document must be freely redistributable and printable, but short > exclusivity (less than 1 year) can be given for initial publication > - the author must accept, if he can't be reached for more than 2 month > or if he ever decides to stop maintaining his document, that someone > else will be given the right to maintain his document (while > acknowledging previous author of course) under the same license > > Not only must we write free documentation, but we must also ensure it > will remain free and available. So an author takes a three month sabbatical and loses control of his/her document? No thanks. Look, you're taking one problem and creating another to solve it. If I want to maintain control of my document (while still allowing free redistribution and such), the LDP shouldn't exclude me from making my work available to it. It is better to have that work available until the author goes away and it has to be removed than to never have that work at all, and that's the situation you've made for yourself. *I* am an example of an author who would *not* put his work under such a license (and thus have it included in the LDP) if that were a requirement. So, which is it? Lose documents, or ensure that the ones you have you will always have? Again, I think the current situation has served us fine. Which document are we going to have to remove because the author can't be reached? --Donnie -- Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com djb@donniebarnes.com "Bah." Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. V. Bats, when dipped in batter and deep fried, still taste pretty bad. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id EAA18083 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 04:08:33 +1000 Received: (qmail 9697 invoked by uid 38); 28 Sep 1999 18:06:18 -0000 Resent-Date: 28 Sep 1999 18:06:17 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: djb@redhat.com Message-Id: <199909281805.OAA04268@chef.meridian.redhat.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: Guylhem Aznar cc: Vladimir Vuksan , LDP discuss Subject: Re: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)) In-reply-to: <19990927213432.A3665@victis.oeil.qc.ca> from Guylhem Aznar on Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:34:32 +0200. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:05:53 -0400 From: Donnie Barnes Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/638 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > > Yes I would like to remove my documents from LDP. > > Then please give us a list, we'll remove them and : > > - try to find other volunteers to rewrite these documents from scratch > if you are the original author > > - update from previous version if you are a maintainer > > With this example, I think we really need a special clause to the > manifesto to leave some rights to the LDP if an author want to take his > document off :-( There you go again. You're trying to make the LDP something that it doesn't have to be. Namely, a controlling and manipulative organization. I can guarantee you this: I would never, EVER use a license on my document that allows for what you just said. You're being ludicrous. Just because an author no longer accepts the goals and objectives of the LDP is no reason for you to think you have some ownership of his content. If an author wants to give that to you, fine. But otherwise, it's his and you simply MUST respect that. Why is this so hard? It's called life. You win some, and you lose some. If the documentation *exists* for free, there is not even a reason to bother finding another author to replicate it *just* for the LDP. No, the LDP doesn't cover the topic. Fine. Someone does, though. Did you ever consider the fact that even if he does remove his docs from the LDP that he might still leave them under a license that allows the LDP to simply pull them anyway? Sure, he's not on your author list and you now have to *poll* for updates instead of having them handed to you, but that's not an unmanageable situation, either. Put them in a different area or something. Sheesh, methinks the LDP is starting to stray in directions that I don't care to see it go. --Donnie -- Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com djb@donniebarnes.com "Bah." Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. V. Bats, when dipped in batter and deep fried, still taste pretty bad. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id KAA20013 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:31:15 +1000 Received: (qmail 22478 invoked by uid 38); 29 Sep 1999 00:31:04 -0000 Resent-Date: 29 Sep 1999 00:31:04 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: bf347@lafn.org Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:30:43 -0700 Message-Id: <199909290030.AA27049@lafn.org> From: bf347@lafn.org (David Lawyer) To: guylhem@oeil.qc.ca Subject: Re: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)) Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Reply-To: bf347@lafn.org Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/644 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org >> > Do you want to remove your documents from the LDP ? >> Yes I would like to remove my documents from LDP. Guylhem Aznar wrote: >Then please give us a list, we'll remove them and : > >With this example, I think we really need a special clause to the >manifesto to leave some rights to the LDP if an author want to take his >document off :-( We don't have to remove them unless we want to. This is because the license permits free distribution and it can't be revoked except by legal means such as a court order or by a termination clause in the license. (There's no termination clause in these, I've checked). The license is a contract which in this case is between the author and the LDP (or between the author and Tim Bynum if you want to argue that the LDP is not a legal entity). Now anyone who has a copy may make copies and give them away. That's what we're (or Tim) is doing by putting it at Metalab. However, the author is not required to maintain it (unless he agreed to do so in the license which he didn't). Can someone else maintain it? They could if the license said anyone could modify it. The license in these docs is exactly the same license that Tim Bynum uses for his HOWTO-INDEX (which he wrote). The paragraph on "derivative works" says that derivative works must use the same license (Tim called it a "copyright notice"). This seems to imply that permission to make derived works has been granted even though it doesn't state this explicitly. The author can always modify his own work and put it under another license. Anyway, I plead with Vladimir Vuksan to reconsider. I've suffered delays in the past up to 2 months but recently my stuff got to Metalab in only a few days. David Lawyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id LAA20475 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:25:02 +1000 Received: (qmail 9407 invoked by uid 38); 29 Sep 1999 01:24:50 -0000 Resent-Date: 29 Sep 1999 01:24:50 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: djb@redhat.com Message-Id: <199909290124.VAA02922@chef.meridian.redhat.com> To: Guylhem Aznar cc: Terry Dawson , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) In-reply-to: <19990928112021.B1019@victis.oeil.qc.ca> from Guylhem Aznar on Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:20:21 +0200. Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:24:27 -0400 From: Donnie Barnes Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/651 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org >> It will be arbitrary because there is no formal voting mechanism in place >> for the LDP to make it anything else. The terms would be arbitrarily >> decided by whoever drafts the rules. > >So let's vote : > >Who agrees with Joshua idea (2 month/30 days/60 days, i.e. letting some >copyright to the LDP to ensure future updates) ? > >Who disagrees and think all copyrights should be kept by each author ? My vote is with the author. --Donnie -- Donnie Barnes http://www.redhat.com/~djb djb@redhat.com "Bah." Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. My Dad used to say I have deceptive quickness. I'm slower than I look. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:38 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (IDENT:root@[207.175.42.154]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id LAA20480 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 11:25:25 +1000 Received: from chef.meridian.redhat.com (IDENT:root@chef.meridian.redhat.com [207.175.42.11]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21212; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:24:45 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (IDENT:djb@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chef.meridian.redhat.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA02922; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:24:27 -0400 Message-Id: <199909290124.VAA02922@chef.meridian.redhat.com> To: Guylhem Aznar cc: Terry Dawson , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) In-reply-to: <19990928112021.B1019@victis.oeil.qc.ca> from Guylhem Aznar on Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:20:21 +0200. Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:24:27 -0400 From: Donnie Barnes >> It will be arbitrary because there is no formal voting mechanism in place >> for the LDP to make it anything else. The terms would be arbitrarily >> decided by whoever drafts the rules. > >So let's vote : > >Who agrees with Joshua idea (2 month/30 days/60 days, i.e. letting some >copyright to the LDP to ensure future updates) ? > >Who disagrees and think all copyrights should be kept by each author ? My vote is with the author. --Donnie -- Donnie Barnes http://www.redhat.com/~djb djb@redhat.com "Bah." Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. My Dad used to say I have deceptive quickness. I'm slower than I look. From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from mailserv.caiw.nl (mailserv.caiw.nl [194.178.9.133]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id QAA21898 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:12:54 +1000 From: Hugo.van.der.Kooij@caiw.nl Received: (from root@localhost) by mailserv.caiw.nl (8.8.5/8.6.12) id IAA12435; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:12:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from k3nw150.dial.kabelfoon.nl(195.193.24.150), claiming to be "bastion.nl3155vj16.vanderkooij.org" via SMTP by mailserv.caiw.nl, id smtpdAAAa12427; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:12:38 +0200 Received: from bastion.nl3155vj16.vanderkooij.org (bastion.nl3155vj16.vanderkooij.org [192.168.100.254]) by bastion.nl3155vj16.vanderkooij.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA07755; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:12:35 +0200 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:12:34 +0200 (CEST) X-Sender: hvdkooij@bastion.nl3155vj16.vanderkooij.org To: Guylhem Aznar cc: Terry Dawson , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) In-Reply-To: <19990928112021.B1019@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Message-ID: X-URL: http://www.caiw.nl/~hvdkooij/ X-Loop: Hugo.van.der.Kooij@caiw.nl MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Guylhem Aznar wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:57:14AM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote: > > It will be arbitrary because there is no formal voting mechanism in place > > for the LDP to make it anything else. The terms would be arbitrarily > > decided by whoever drafts the rules. > > So let's vote : > > Who agrees with Joshua idea (2 month/30 days/60 days, i.e. letting some > copyright to the LDP to ensure future updates) ? > > Who disagrees and think all copyrights should be kept by each author ? > > There will not be any arbitrar decision. Copyright remains with the author (which is also in line with international rules regarding copyright.) Hugo. -- Hugo van der Kooij; Oranje Nassaustraat 16; 3155 VJ Maasland hvdkooij@caiw.nl http://home.kabelfoon.nl/~hvdkooij/ -------------------------------------------------------------- Use of any of my email addresses for unsollicited (commercial) email is a clear intrusion of my privacy and illegal! From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA26517 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 07:10:15 +1000 Received: (qmail 19547 invoked by uid 38); 29 Sep 1999 21:10:03 -0000 Resent-Date: 29 Sep 1999 21:10:02 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Message-Id: <199909292106.OAA31206@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com> From: "{poet}" Organization: CommandPrompt Software To: Guylhem Aznar Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 13:50:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)) Reply-to: poet@linuxports.com CC: LDP discuss Priority: normal In-reply-to: <19990927115120.B1132@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990927095101.A6047@albert.animats.net>; from Terry Dawson on Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 09:51:01AM +1000 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/681 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org I would be happy to post it to the site... but I don't have a copy Date forwarded: 27 Sep 1999 19:06:43 -0000 Date sent: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:51:20 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Terry Dawson Copies to: LDP discuss Subject: Re: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)) Forwarded by: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org > On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 09:51:01AM +1000, Terry Dawson wrote: > > ... and then what? mutter comments into the winds? > > You'd better send them to ldp-submit and Cc the author :-) > > > Is there some document, that even briefly, describes the role and function > > of the QC, what actions they should take, and how they should take them? > > It has been posted by Alessandro Rubini some weeks ago, clearly > explaining the goals and the functions of the members. > (BTW, could it be added to our site ?) > > > As an author I'm not interested in submitting a document for QC and having > > ten responses telling me the same things. I'd like a single coordinated > > response please. Otherwise I might just as well use the community at large > > for QC as I always have. > > As a 'trusted' author (this is not your first time) I doubt anyone will > reread your document, but you can request it if you want more immediate > feedback. > > -- > Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org > Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem > Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca > Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor.org > LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA26723 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 07:48:52 +1000 Received: (qmail 19443 invoked by uid 38); 29 Sep 1999 21:48:43 -0000 Resent-Date: 29 Sep 1999 21:48:43 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: jim@jimpick.com Sender: jim@pepper.jimpick.com To: Guylhem Aznar Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Updating Internic info for linuxdoc.org References: <87yae06em5.fsf@pepper.jimpick.com> X-Url: http://www.jimpick.com/ From: Jim Pick Date: 29 Sep 1999 14:48:27 -0700 In-Reply-To: Jim Pick's message of "20 Sep 1999 22:02:58 -0700" Message-ID: <871zbhpexg.fsf@pepper.jimpick.com> Lines: 285 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070095 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.95) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <30BFPB.A.qvE.7ko83@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/683 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Guylhem, Could you send me your contact info so I could finish this task off? Cheers, - Jim Jim Pick writes: > Hi Guylhem, > > (I've cc:'d to the ldp-discuss list and Lars so that everything is > out in the open) > > Since you are the new leader of the LDP, we should update the > authoritative contact record for the linuxdoc.org domain so that it > lists you, and not Lars. > > If you could fill out the blank lines on the form (marked "X"), I can > send the form into hostmaster@internic.net to make the changes. (or > you can send the form in yourself) > > I've also added on a new nameserver (cosmos.jimpick.com) for some > additional redundancy. > > Cheers, > > - Jim > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > This is the Domain Name Registration Agreement you > recently created. > In order to complete this modification, > > YOU MUST E-MAIL THIS FORM TO: hostmaster@internic.net > > After you e-mail this form, you should receive an auto-reply > with a tracking number. You must use that number in the > Subject of any future messages you send regarding > this registration action. > Once this registration action is completed you will receive > a notification via e-mail. > > [ URL http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/domain ] [ 03/98 ] > [ URL ftp://rs.internic.net/templates/domain-template.txt ] [ 03/98 ] > > ******* Please DO NOT REMOVE Version Number or Sections A-Q ******** > > Domain Version Number: 4.0 > > ******* Email completed agreement to hostmaster@internic.net ******* > > NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. > > DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION AGREEMENT > > > A. Introduction. This domain name registration agreement > ("Registration Agreement") is submitted to NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. > ("NSI") for the purpose of applying for and registering a domain name > on the Internet. If this Registration Agreement is accepted by NSI, > and a domain name is registered in NSI's domain name database and > assigned to the Registrant, Registrant ("Registrant") agrees to be > bound by the terms of this Registration Agreement and the terms of > NSI's Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Dispute Policy") which is > incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Registration > Agreement. This Registration Agreement shall be accepted at the > offices of NSI. > > B. Fees and Payments. > > 1) Registration or renewal (re-registration) date through March 31, 1998: > Registrant agrees to pay a registration fee of One Hundred United States > Dollars (US) as consideration for the registration of each new domain > name or Fifty United States Dollars (US) to renew (re-register) an > existing registration. > 2) Registration or renewal date on and after April 1, 1998: Registrant > agrees to pay a registration fee of Seventy United States Dollars (US) > as consideration for the registration of each new domain name or the > applicable renewal (re-registration) fee (currently Thirty-Five United > States Dollars (US)) at the time of renewal (re-registration). > 3) Period of Service: The non-refundable fee covers a period of two (2) > years for each new registration, and one (1) year for each renewal, > and includes any permitted modification(s) to the domain name record > during the covered period. > 4) Payment: Payment is due to Network Solutions within thirty (30) > days from the date of the invoice. > > C. Dispute Policy. Registrant agrees, as a condition to > submitting this Registration Agreement, and if the Registration > Agreement is accepted by NSI, that the Registrant shall be bound by > NSI's current Dispute Policy. The current version of the Dispute > Policy may be found at the InterNIC Registration Services web site: > "http://www.netsol.com/rs/dispute-policy.html". > > D. Dispute Policy Changes or Modifications. Registrant agrees > that NSI, in its sole discretion, may change or modify the Dispute > Policy, incorporated by reference herein, at any time. Registrant > agrees that Registrant's maintaining the registration of a domain name > after changes or modifications to the Dispute Policy become effective > constitutes Registrant's continued acceptance of these changes or > modifications. Registrant agrees that if Registrant considers any such > changes or modifications to be unacceptable, Registrant may request > that the domain name be deleted from the domain name database. > > E. Disputes. Registrant agrees that, if the registration of its > domain name is challenged by any third party, the Registrant will be > subject to the provisions specified in the Dispute Policy. > > F. Agents. Registrant agrees that if this Registration Agreement > is completed by an agent for the Registrant, such as an ISP or > Administrative Contact/Agent, the Registrant is nonetheless bound as a > principal by all terms and conditions herein, including the Dispute > Policy. > > G. Limitation of Liability. Registrant agrees that NSI shall have > no liability to the Registrant for any loss Registrant may incur in > connection with NSI's processing of this Registration Agreement, in > connection with NSI's processing of any authorized modification to the > domain name's record during the covered period, as a result of the > Registrant's ISP's failure to pay either the initial registration fee > or renewal fee, or as a result of the application of the provisions of > the Dispute Policy. Registrant agrees that in no event shall the > maximum liability of NSI under this Agreement for any matter exceed > Five Hundred United States Dollars (US). > > H. Indemnity. Registrant agrees, in the event the Registration > Agreement is accepted by NSI and a subsequent dispute arises with any > third party, to indemnify and hold NSI harmless pursuant to the terms > and conditions contained in the Dispute Policy. > > I. Breach. Registrant agrees that failure to abide by any > provision of this Registration Agreement or the Dispute Policy may be > considered by NSI to be a material breach and that NSI may provide a > written notice, describing the breach, to the Registrant. If, within > thirty (30) days of the date of mailing such notice, the Registrant > fails to provide evidence, which is reasonably satisfactory to NSI, > that it has not breached its obligations, then NSI may delete > Registrant's registration of the domain name. Any such breach by a > Registrant shall not be deemed to be excused simply because NSI did > not act earlier in response to that, or any other, breach by the > Registrant. > > J. No Guaranty. Registrant agrees that, by registration of a > domain name, such registration does not confer immunity from objection > to either the registration or use of the domain name. > > K. Warranty. Registrant warrants by submitting this Registration > Agreement that, to the best of Registrant's knowledge and belief, the > information submitted herein is true and correct, and that any future > changes to this information will be provided to NSI in a timely manner > according to the domain name modification procedures in place at that > time. Breach of this warranty will constitute a material breach. > > L. Revocation. Registrant agrees that NSI may delete a > Registrant's domain name if this Registration Agreement, or subsequent > modification(s) thereto, contains false or misleading information, or > conceals or omits any information NSI would likely consider material > to its decision to approve this Registration Agreement. > > M. Right of Refusal. NSI, in its sole discretion, reserves the > right to refuse to approve the Registration Agreement for any > Registrant. Registrant agrees that the submission of this Registration > Agreement does not obligate NSI to accept this Registration Agreement. > Registrant agrees that NSI shall not be liable for loss or damages > that may result from NSI's refusal to accept this Registration > Agreement. > > N. Severability. Registrant agrees that the terms of this > Registration Agreement are severable. If any term or provision is > declared invalid, it shall not affect the remaining terms or > provisions which shall continue to be binding. > > O. Entirety. Registrant agrees that this Registration Agreement > and the Dispute Policy is the complete and exclusive agreement between > Registrant and NSI regarding the registration of Registrant's domain > name. This Registration Agreement and the Dispute Policy supersede all > prior agreements and understandings, whether established by custom, > practice, policy, or precedent. > > P. Governing Law. Registrant agrees that this Registration > Agreement shall be governed in all respects by and construed in > accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, United > States of America. By submitting this Registration Agreement, > Registrant consents to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the > United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, > Alexandria Division. If there is no jurisdiction in the United States > District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria > Division, then jurisdiction shall be in the Circuit Court of Fairfax > County, Fairfax, Virginia. > > Q. This is Domain Name Registration Agreement Version > Number 4.0. This Registration Agreement is only for registrations > under top-level domains: COM, ORG, NET, and EDU. By completing > and submitting this Registration Agreement for consideration and > acceptance by NSI, the Registrant agrees that he/she has read and > agrees to be bound by A through P above. > > Authorization > 0a. (N)ew (M)odify (D)elete.........: M Name Registration > 0b. Auth Scheme.....................: MAIL-FROM > 0c. Auth Info.......................: > > 1. Comments........................: > > 2. Complete Domain Name............: linuxdoc.org > > Organization Using Domain Name > 3a. Organization Name................: Linux Documentation Project > 3b. Street Address..................: X > 3c. City............................: X > 3d. State...........................: PQ > 3e. Postal Code.....................: X > 3f. Country.........................: CA > > Administrative Contact > 4a. NIC Handle (if known)...........: > 4b. (I)ndividual (R)ole?............: Individual > 4c. Name (Last, First)..............: Guylhem Aznar > 4d. Organization Name...............: Linux Documentation Project > 4e. Street Address..................: X > 4f. City............................: X > 4g. State...........................: PQ > 4h. Postal Code.....................: X > 4i. Country.........................: CA > 4j. Phone Number....................: X > 4k. Fax Number......................: X > 4l. E-Mailbox.......................: guylhem@oeil.qc.ca > > Technical Contact > 5a. NIC Handle (if known)...........: JP1946 > 5b. (I)ndividual (R)ole?............: Individual > 5c. Name(Last, First)...............: > 5d. Organization Name...............: > 5e. Street Address..................: > 5f. City............................: > 5g. State...........................: > 5h. Postal Code.....................: > 5i. Country.........................: > 5j. Phone Number....................: > 5k. Fax Number......................: > 5l. E-Mailbox.......................: > > Billing Contact > 6a. NIC Handle (if known)...........: JP1946 > 6b. (I)ndividual (R)ole?............: Individual > 6c. Name (Last, First)..............: > 6d. Organization Name...............: > 6e. Street Address..................: > 6f. City............................: > 6g. State...........................: > 6h. Postal Code.....................: > 6i. Country.........................: > 6j. Phone Number....................: > 6k. Fax Number......................: > 6l. E-Mailbox.......................: > > Prime Name Server > 7a. Primary Server Hostname.........: TIA.JIMPICK.COM > 7b. Primary Server Netaddress.......: 204.209.212.111 > > Secondary Name Server(s) > 8a. Secondary Server Hostname.......: CA.MOBILEDNS.NET > 8b. Secondary Server Netaddress.....: 24.112.120.187 > 8a. Secondary Server Hostname..: cosmos.jimpick.com > 8b. Secondary Server Netaddress: 139.142.87.223 > > > END OF AGREEMENT > > > For instructions, please refer to: > "http://www.networksolutions.com/help/changes/inst_mod.html" > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id SAA29873 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:24:11 +1000 Received: (qmail 11701 invoked by uid 38); 30 Sep 1999 08:23:45 -0000 Resent-Date: 30 Sep 1999 08:23:45 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: bf347@lafn.org Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:23:27 -0700 Message-Id: <199909300823.AA18534@lafn.org> From: bf347@lafn.org (David Lawyer) To: guylhem@oeil.qc.ca Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Reply-To: bf347@lafn.org Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/687 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Guyhlem Aznar wrote: >So let's vote : > >Who agrees with Joshua idea (2 month/30 days/60 days, i.e. letting some >copyright to the LDP to ensure future updates) ? > >Who disagrees and think all copyrights should be kept by each author ? I vote to let the authors keep their copyrights since you can't take it away from them unless they have agreed to that condition in advance. Also, I don't think that the LDP should incorportate as a formal organization since it would require a lot of planning in order to avoid the dangers of a hostile takeover. If the LDP owns a lot of copyrights it would be a lucrative target for such a takeover. Most authors don't participate and just a handful of renegade authors (of short howtos ?) might take over the organization and get ownership of its copyrights. While it probably wouldn't happen, it could. There are lots of such hostile takeovers, many that never are covered in the news. David Lawyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id XAA32699 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 23:22:28 +1000 Received: (qmail 29519 invoked by uid 38); 7 Sep 1999 13:18:07 -0000 Resent-Date: 7 Sep 1999 13:18:07 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: psj@mustec.eu.org Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:12:48 +0100 (GMT) From: P Jenner To: David Lawyer cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: HOWTOs: QC, contents, & minis In-Reply-To: <199909070116.AA20189@lafn.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/348 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, David Lawyer wrote: > Feedback needs to go directly to the author/maintainer. But one may > state in the howto what type of questions one will/will not answer. One of the advantages of having an Open Source style licencing for LDP docs is that anyone may modify and distribute them. Obviously document forks are to be avoided but if the community sees an improvement to a doc in the open then it will adopt it. This should work well where authors/maintainers are active as good patches to their doc will most probably be accepted and integrated. However how is this community improvement to work in cases in which the author/maintainer does not wish to be contacted and will not accept such patches? Paul ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul S Jenner GNU/Linux Advocate E-mail: psj@mustec.eu.org WWW: http://www.mustec.eu.org/~psj/ UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL IS NOT WELCOME AT THIS ADDRESS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id UAA14109 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 20:53:16 +1000 Received: (qmail 7376 invoked by uid 38); 17 Sep 1999 10:52:16 -0000 Resent-Date: 17 Sep 1999 10:52:16 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 10:40:18 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: David Lawyer Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Translations (to English?) Message-ID: <19990917104018.A1029@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <199909170604.AA09311@lafn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=jRHKVT23PllUwdXP; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <199909170604.AA09311@lafn.org>; from David Lawyer on Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 11:04:20PM -0700 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/470 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 11:04:20PM -0700, David Lawyer wrote: > As the author of Modem-HOWTO, I've been aware of (and have a copy of) the= =20 > French howto. While it may be better written (I can't read it) it is=20 > obsolete since it doesn't cover the current issues of Winmodems,=20 > Plug-and-Play, and PCI. It also is broader than my howto and covers all= =20 > types of modems, but we have mini-howtos on DSL and Cable modems in Engli= sh. Could you include them in the mini HOWTO ? > Someone did start to translate and/or merge the howtos but it never=20 > worked out (I was too busy to learn French, etc.) I can send you a translation if you need it. > working on merging it. While it's not a good example to use for=20 > documents that need translating to English today, I'll agree that it shou= ld=20 > have been translated 3 years ago. You're right, it's not a good example now, but there're certainly more HOWTOs like this one in local LDPs. Since we don't speak all these languages, we depend on feedback given by members of the local LDPs. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN+H+ct+QeWug/qfFAQHhSwP/YC9no82s9m+kFnR5Lu7l55La3QYJJgOr hKxofeQcRsg0K5idCUwg8BSppqTYThSBFs02r8TOstfBRpway+c2fC5G94Wbl0GL iNDsGcpcnqva2GAJ3YqKMTweXdJVt2ohs5G9E4q6LVSqxTNe1VxiFMkUsm4m5m2T WI8nJyhy9pM= =oHO6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id RAA08416 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 17:47:34 +1000 Received: (qmail 22583 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 07:46:54 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 07:46:54 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:56:08 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mr. Poet" X-Sender: jd@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com To: David Lawyer cc: poet@linuxports.com, ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Comments on web site. In-Reply-To: <199909270628.AA03063@lafn.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/601 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hello, Hmm... This will present a problem, the site is currently coded to work in all browsers but lynx does pose certain issues. I will see what I can do. Poet LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, David Lawyer wrote: > > > Poet wrote: > > > >In regards to the Core Team statement, although there are a few out there > >that could truly care less about who the "team" is. I can honestly say > >that since we have placed the members in a very visible place people have > >been actually been becoming positive about the project. > > Most of the people who come to the site are looking for info. On my lynx > browser on a small screen, the core team takes up most of the first > screen. It's OK to have them on the first screen but they should not come > first. They need to be compactly arranged. The old site had a few links > on a single line with everything single spaced. Now it's only a couple > of words per line with double spacing. Thus I think that links to the > HOWTOs should come first on the page (after a modest LDP title). And > they should be more compactly arranged to accomodate large print on small > screens (like my text-terminal). > > David Lawyer > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id XAA10016 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:27:58 +1000 Received: (qmail 20866 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 13:27:48 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 13:27:48 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: gferg@hoop.timonium.sgi.com From: "Greg Ferguson" Message-Id: <9909270933.ZM13057@hoop.timonium.sgi.com> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:33:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: bf347@lafn.org (David Lawyer) "Re: Comments on web site." (Sep 26, 11:28pm) References: <199909270628.AA03063@lafn.org> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.3 08feb96 MediaMail) To: bf347@lafn.org, poet@linuxports.com, ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Comments on web site. Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/604 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org On Sep 26, 11:28pm, David Lawyer wrote: > Subject: Re: Comments on web site. > > Most of the people who come to the site are looking for info. > On my lynx browser on a small screen, the core team takes up > most of the first screen. Agreed. We need to fix this. Info about the core team needs to be shoved to the bottom. ---- Ferg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id FAA11625 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 05:21:39 +1000 Received: (qmail 27682 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 19:05:47 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 19:05:47 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:34:56 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: David Lawyer Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)) Message-ID: <19990927113456.C1052@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <199909270603.AA01352@lafn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=JWEK1jqKZ6MHAcjA; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <199909270603.AA01352@lafn.org>; from David Lawyer on Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:03:26PM -0700 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/612 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --JWEK1jqKZ6MHAcjA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Sep 26, 1999 at 11:03:26PM -0700, David Lawyer wrote: > I think that waiting one week is way too long for a small revision to a > HOWTO. You should have a password/signature system and put them onsite= =20 > immediately. The only docs that should be held for QC are first-time=20 > submissions or when a new maintainer first takes over a doc and=20 > makes significant changes. Other docs should undergo QC when they are=20 Agreed. > It should be pointed out that "incoming" means to be posted to the LDP=20 > and mirror sites. (on the ftp only ; I didn't find any incoming section on the web site) > There should also be another 'incoming' section for docs waiting for > QC.=20 Ok, what about "coming soon" ? --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --JWEK1jqKZ6MHAcjA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN+86QN+QeWug/qfFAQHQyAP+JSRMqo+tKHZpF5L5+qaJvMRHHJViGzER GGdln+bzZttWk4Ar8ALEGwVTgdfEtQ3GmFu3FcT2HGWj6BLvzDY727MWbMu3ZqsG Vl92kfrgZ/pUWaNsfCXLw7ePTMwtMGJTiev0wjGZ5tCmsJteyjMdcEB0gzgijPir aNxZFUVtlz8= =YF5F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --JWEK1jqKZ6MHAcjA-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id XAA31375 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:14:12 +1000 Received: (qmail 32466 invoked by uid 38); 30 Sep 1999 13:07:06 -0000 Resent-Date: 30 Sep 1999 13:07:06 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: JKoch@mcp.com X-Internal-ID: 37EF952300035378 Message-ID: <5753A9B81DE9D211AAC6006008176ED971182F@CARMMS102> From: JKoch@mcp.com To: bf347@lafn.org Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: RE: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revisi Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:06:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/694 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > -----Original Message----- > From: bf347@lafn.org [mailto:bf347@lafn.org] > Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 2:11 AM > To: JKoch@mcp.com > Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org > Subject: RE: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: > revisi > > > > > Jeff Koch wrote: > >From the LDP Manifesto page: > >"Any translation or derived work must be approved by the > author in writing > >before distribution." > > > This has been taken out of context. The previous paragraph > states: "Here > is a ``boilerplate license'' you *may* apply to your work." > Thus it only > applies to authors who have copied it into their work. Using grep, I > can't find a single HOWTO that has used it (as of a few months ago). > Thus it is not LDP policy nor does it apply to any HOWTOs > that I have on > my PC and your comments below are based on a false premise. My comments below are not based on a false premise. I used the option above to illustrate how the current licensing practices promote confusion. Just because people haven't invoked the above option yet doesn't mean that it's not available and potentially harmful to the overall goals of the LDP. My overall point was, that without enforcing a consistent license, individual pieces of the LDP may or may not be free, updatable, whatever. > > >In this case, distribution could mean electronic > distribution - which means > >the LDP wouldn't have the right to post a derived work > without the author's > >permission. Of course, since the LDP doesn't have a > consistent license, > >there's no telling which pieces of the LDP could, or > couldn't, be updated - > >unless you want to examine each piece separately. Some of > the more vocal > >people on this list have the position that a consistent > license would make > >it more difficult to work with the LDP. > > > >The fact this topic of conversation is even brought up makes me think > >differently. After all, if the overall goal of the LDP is to provide > >high-quality, free information, then the ability to update > and maintain > >content easily, and without fear of legal action, is of > utmost importance. > >The LDP needs to put rules in place to ensure this happens. > If authors don't > >want to play by whatever rules the LDP comes up with, then > they should post > >their material elsewhere. > > > >Jeff Koch > > > > > >-- > >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmaster@lists.debian.org > > > > > > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id EAA21389 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 04:09:19 +1000 Received: (qmail 21935 invoked by uid 38); 10 Sep 1999 18:09:09 -0000 Resent-Date: 10 Sep 1999 18:09:09 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: psj@mustec.eu.org Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:03:28 +0100 (GMT) From: P Jenner To: Alessandro Rubini cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: QC draft & community involvement In-Reply-To: <19990910144243.07150@morgana.systemy.it> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/364 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org I apologise I think my comments were not best phrased and came out a little strong. I believe some points remain valid however. On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Alessandro Rubini wrote: > Ok, this is about the part that I left behind in the draft, i.e.: "why > do we need QC". I agree that we do not QC and I think we agree about the kind of QC we do need - I just ahve questions about the details so that they do not get in the way of community submission through that QC. > > whatever QC exists within the LDP organisation the best QC is the > > community. > Yes, but this needs some control. I agree with you here. The QC then becomes a community moderator effectively. > Every successfull project (I refer here to free sw/docs) has some sort > of control; be it a person or a group. Yes and the role of that person or group is usually not primarily producing but harnessing and organising the production of others. For example on the GNOME project. A central core team organises the overall development, web site etc. A larger group, not all known to the core team, has CVS write access to the GNOME source archive. These people are knoen to produce good and responsible work and are trusted to have write access after asking for it. The larger community as a whole has CVS read access and distribution access. They either bug-report via the web / e-mail or preferably submit patches to those with CVS access who include them, modify and include them or reject them as appropriate. I apologise for the length of detail in that description but I think all of it is worthy of note. The system works because there is a core team capable of harnessing energies and organising things (LDP leaders and QC people), there is a wider group of developers who can write to any part of the project but who only tend to produce good stuff as they are committed and trusted (HOWTO maintainers and regular contributors) and all others users who can make an improvement to the project have there contributions faciliated by an easy to get involved system (LDP readers). I am just worried that the QC manifesto could be read as saying simply there should be only QC and leaders who can write documents to the LDP, HOWTO maintainers are the only ones able to alter their own docs and then only via QC and that all other users must go via maintainers who may not have time or energy to facilitate their contribution. > For the LDP to be successfull we need the same kind of control: bad > contributions must be refused and mid-good stuff must be sent back to > the author for making it better. I agree with the upshot. What I believe may be more profitable top learn from the Open Source movement is that bad contributions should be rejected with a clear explanation why and mid-good stuff should be worked on by those able to (QC and contributors) to make it good. > We just can't allow a crowd of newcomers to flood the LDP with > low-quality material, as it will just lower the social role of the LDP > as a whole. I agree. However if their contributions are simply rejected off-hand or not facilitated then any good stuff they may generate will be lost to the movement most probably forever. I would argue anyway that unless someone believes that something is genuinely useful and good they probably would not submit it. > Please note that *nobody* is preventing anyone in the community from > releasing other documents through other means (I also wrote this in > the draft), we just need to protect the brand of the LDP. I would have thought that this is probably not the best way forward. If doc is good then the LDP should embrace it for the community. If doc is bad then the community will ignore it and it will go unnoticed. There is good doc out there which is not part of the LDP and could be if facilitated. > Since we can't ask Tim nor Guy to check every document that they get, > we need to set up a group of people to split the workload. I agree strongly and I think we agree that this is the reason for the QC. > > Therefore community additions and modifications should > > be given as much weight and consideration as official QC ones, > I'm sorry, I don't understand this point. As usual, additions and > modifications pass through the maintainer, unless someone wants to > fork document maintainance (which is generally considered a practice > to avoid whenever possible). I did not make myself clear - I apologise. I really meant to say that submissions for corrections to the QC or maintainer from the community are just as likely if not more likely to be valid than those generated purely by the QC or maintainer alone. I know personally than when I write anything, if I ask others they always without fail suggest improvements I would never have seen alone. The community has a great number of eyes for such a job - we would be silly not to use them. > Oh, and I forgot to state that the LDP leader should be able to revoke > a QC member with no prior notice. This is important, as one with a > good resume could be accepted in QC and then boycott things out. This is the reason why I am not totally convinced that one QC should be able to boycott things out. After all the community may want something different from a HOWTO than the QC does. For example a QC may have a strong idea that all docs should be vendor neutral but the community could be having real problems setting up PPP under Red Hat particularly. A member of the community may submit a ptach to the PPP HOWTO covering that issue - something LDP readers could really use. However the QC would reject it alone. Surely not a good thing. I hope these comments are positive and I hope you don't mind but I CC'd ldp-discuss with this one as I believe certain of my comments here are probably of discussion interest to others (if only to flame me :-). Yours, Paul ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul S Jenner GNU/Linux Advocate E-mail: psj@mustec.eu.org WWW: http://www.mustec.eu.org/~psj/ UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL IS NOT WELCOME AT THIS ADDRESS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id TAA25597 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 19:00:44 +1000 Received: (qmail 18490 invoked by uid 38); 11 Sep 1999 09:00:37 -0000 Resent-Date: 11 Sep 1999 09:00:37 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: DIDICKMAN@amherst.edu Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 05:00:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Subject: Re: Kernel Hackers Guide In-reply-to: <19990911091120.52535@morgana.systemy.it> To: Alessandro Rubini Cc: "Re:Linux"@morgana.systemy.it, Kernel@morgana.systemy.it, Hacker's@morgana.systemy.it, Guide@morgana.systemy.it, ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org, didickma@james.amherst.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/385 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org I'm still hard at work on the KHG, although I haven't put up any of my work yet, and I don't intend to do so until I get something usable going. I think folding the KHG back into the LDP is a great idea though, and I'd definitely be willing to do that in the future. As for a time frame... it will be done "when it's ready." But I'm expecting to have a web publishable version ready by the end of January or so... Dan On Sat, 11 Sep 1999, Alessandro Rubini wrote: > > Poet asked: > > Anybody have a copy of this? Redhat has taken it down. Thus I have taken > > it off the of the LDP website until we find a copy :) > > Ok, I didn't notice we just had a link to the RH site. Couldn't we, instead > get a local copy of the beast? It looks like it is your intention for this > specific case, but I would like it becomes a general policy... > > Tim replied: > > ftp://wallybox.cei.net/pub/Linux/khg.tar.gz > > Yes, this has the *big* advantage of being the source format, although > I think something was added later, after its move to hypernews. > > As fas as the khg is concerned, during July '99 I've been contacted by > Dan Dickson who was willing to update and maintain the Guide. I'm > quoting his ideas here below. Dan is Cc'd. > > Dan, any news about your project? What about folding it back to the LDP? > > > Just thought I'd let you know: I've started working on the khg in my spare > > time for now. I put it up at: > > > > http://www.amherst.edu/~didickma/khg/HyperNews/get/khg.html > > > > Right now I'm focusing on the following stuff, in this order: > > -- get rid of all the comments, and integrate useful suggestions and > > ideas into the khg. > > -- update the khg to match the 2.2.10 kernel > > -- edit for grammer. > > -- create a nice looking web site. > > Unfortunately, I currently see no trace of KHG material under dan's home > (and the link above is doesn't work). > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA08793 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 07:49:00 +1000 Received: (qmail 31864 invoked by uid 38); 11 Sep 1999 21:48:52 -0000 Resent-Date: 11 Sep 1999 21:48:52 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: pjones@metalab.unc.edu X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: pjones owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:48:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Jones X-Sender: pjones@titan.oit.unc.edu To: Alessandro Rubini cc: Jonathan Magid , Efron Miles , Don Sizemore , psj@mustec.eu.org, ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Boutell's OpenFAQ software In-Reply-To: <19990910224953.23376@morgana.systemy.it> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/391 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org this is slightly off-topic, but i think on point. for very quick and easy collaboration on simple documents, tom boutell's openfaq package looks great. very little author overhead, easy to install and even fairly secure. plus the boutell code which now puts out html faq pages could be used to produce simple sgml or better xml. http://www.boutell.com/openfaq/source/ this would be a very low tech QC implementation for fast response documents. authors all do the QC and the work is immediately available. ========================================================================== Paul Jones "We must protect our precious bodily fluids!" General Jack D Ripper http://MetaLab.unc.edu/pjones/ at the Site Formerly Known As SunSITE.unc.edu pjones@MetaLab.unc.edu voice: (919) 962-7600 fax: (919) 962-8071 =========================================================================== -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id DAA09192 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 03:57:38 +1000 Received: (qmail 11052 invoked by uid 38); 19 Sep 1999 17:52:21 -0000 Resent-Date: 19 Sep 1999 17:52:21 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: garym@maya.dyndns.org Sender: garym@mail.wccweb.com To: Alessandro Rubini Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: [off topic] Re: Licensing issues References: <19990918174029.27358@morgana.systemy.it> From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Date: 19 Sep 1999 13:49:11 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: Gary Lawrence Murphy Organization: TeleDynamics --- the Art of Being There X-Url: http://www.teledyn.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/503 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Alessandro raises very good points on the freedom of documents, and at the start I should explain that I consult to a publisher but do not work for them; I do what I do for Macmillan primarily out of my own agenda for world domination. It's my agenda, not theirs, and I am dragging them, kicking and screaming, to see things my way. >>>>> "A" == Alessandro Rubini writes: A> And I, as an author, want to block "proprietarization" of my A> free documents and derived ones. The GPL is a viable mean, A> although not the perfect license for this task. This is also the concern of publishers. If a document is offered for free, they do not (did not) like finding a competitor snarfing the document and getting it to press in direct competition --- armed with a "prior-art" clause! A> A free book must be freely reprinted. It's like the software A> issue: we don't want to reinvent or rewrite everything, we want A> to be able to build on the existent. A very good point, but we need to consider that GPL software is now 15 years mature, whereas OPL documents have not yet seen the printers ink. It is like those companies (MySQL for example, Sun for another) who have been giving out free binaries and now toy with the opensource model, trying not to risk too much in their first baby steps. I believe they will find their OPL books will outsell the non-OPL on principle alone, but the real value to them will not appear until their books are the product of peer review and revision, exactly as now happens in software. Before we get there, publishers must have a model for constructing modular books (ie XML), a model for distributing incremental updates (OPL and just-in-time printing) and, the area which is my main interest, a model for iterative incremental revisions (eg monetary incentives for revisions); the model of the author-superstar must fall to the model of the endless-contributors as we see in the Linux Contrib file. I humbly offer that the notion of "anyone may modify" is ever so slightly misunderstood. If a doc is OPL, a teacher can modify it, edit it, annotate it, and distribute it freely with very little fear of reprisal, but they cannot slap a cover on it and ship it to Barnes and Noble under their brand name. Let's be honest: The same is true of all 'official' Linux distributions. You or I cannot make a contribution to Linux. It is closed. Shut tight. We are banned from making contributions. We can modify our local copy, but only Linus and the inner circle can actually change the official kernel --- all we mere mortals can do is recommend changes and offer patches. This model works very well and is emulated in most GPL and BSD projects, so let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the same restriction on a doc is somehow less free. This is why we have the issue of contacting the original doc maintainer. It is also true that we can create a derived Linux, which is what RedHat and others do when they apply their own patches and ship under their own brand name, but we cannot change any of those other derived Linux proucts, we can only derive our own. Further, OpenLinux, RH, Turbo and the others are all derived works, but they are often not compatible with tux.org Linux; not even the mainstream distros can modify official linux. The publishers want elements of this: They want to ensure any changes to their 'official' edition are submitted to them as patches and recommendations, and my plan for their process is to also let them commission 'official' incremental revisions. This is not just a clash of cultures, but a clash of media: Software is distributed *only* electronically, so there is no issue of the *physical* edition. The OPL matches everything you can say about software; Option B only restricts the tactile artifact called 'book', and this has no parallel in software. A> ... time. If a publisher denies printing for 2 or A> 3 years I think it is an acceptable trade off Only if we use the traditional model of a book as a single ISBN with an edition number. It would work today, but if I get my way, it won't work tomorrow. I want to see never-ending books, where the next shipment to Barnes and Noble contains all the latest patches. The book never goes out of print; readers always get the very latest edition. I am, of course, talking about a complete rewrite of the publishing business model but it would not be my first tilt at a windmill ;) If - or rather *when* books are produced on-demand with constant incremental updates (which is how Sun produces all their docs), the publisher will need to ensure their ownership of the printed edition until they wrap their heads around a business model where the quality of their imprint and their presentation are their distinguishing (and copyright-able) features, they will need to see themselves as transport and marketing mechanisms rather than as the content source; this is how RedHat and Caldera carve their niche --- we are a long, long way from publishers seeing their world this way. Keep in mind that I can create an LSL-like RedHat distro, but if I were to copy the package, CD cover and printed materials wrapping Red Hat 6.0 and put it on the shelf of a local bookstore, I expect I would hear from Bob Young's lawyers. A> ... The LDP distributes the free document and you print your A> extended-enhanced-whatever version as proprietary. This is the model being used by Coriolis, and I think it is wrong. It encourages authors to leave the juicy parts out of the free edition and save them for the paid gig. LDP gets to be the poor relation, waiting on hand-outs, having only what is necessary and is left unrevised and unmaintained while the publisher's deluxe (ie correct, current and complete) edition rises to #185 on the Amazon sales list. Who wins here? I see the LDP becoming the library of definitive docs, and I want to see the publishers fund the LDP because it provides their raw material; like the RedHats and Calderas, the publishers are simply the means to get publically-created LDP material into the public hands and the books themselves are largely self-directing creatures. For the near term, though, and I am open to any alternative plans, the only path I see to that world is to let publishers 'adopt' specific documents, and the only consession we need grant them is ownership of the commercial imprints --- a rule which is actually only included to protect each publisher from their own collegues. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Telecom Services : Internet Consulting : http://www.teledyn.com Linux Writers Workshop Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-hack/ "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." -- (Miles Davis) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id BAA15346 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:39:24 +1000 Received: (qmail 27673 invoked by uid 38); 20 Sep 1999 15:39:17 -0000 Resent-Date: 20 Sep 1999 15:39:17 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: djb@redhat.com Message-Id: <199909201538.LAA01550@chef.meridian.redhat.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: Alessandro Rubini cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Licensing issues In-reply-to: <19990918174029.27358@morgana.systemy.it> from Alessandro Rubini on Sat, 18 Sep 1999 17:40:29 +0200. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:38:58 -0400 From: Donnie Barnes Resent-Message-ID: <_Qc0OB.A.LwG.lUl53@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/514 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > > The problem with NOT contacting the author directly is that changing the > > document without the authors permission is often copyright infringement. > > That's one reason why we need that all LDP documents are absolutely > free. The documents must allow modifications (with the usual > disclaimers of non-endorsing etc, and maybe with an exception about > non-techinal parts, but this is controversial, as already noted on > this list -- or was it the older one?). >From your own paragraph above you note that there are reasons to *not* allow modification to a document (or at least part of it) yet you still assert that all docs should be freely modifiable. This is silly. Folks, look. This has been beaten to death here and on many other mailing lists. Documentation is not software. Sure, in some cases it is *like* software when folks are collaborating to work on it. Most of the time that is *not* the case, however. Where it is the case, folks can certainly license their docs so that they are modifiable if they wish. But I assert there are plenty of valid reasons that people may *not* want their document modified, and there is NO REASON that the LDP should enforce that LDP docs be modifiable. The current manifesto outlines that they must be redistributable, and I think this is the only reasonable real restriction we need to place on the LDP authors. I don't care to go into the debate on why we need to avoid this *again*. Suffice it to say that documentation IS NOT software. Leave people the ability to choose and let the LDP have the most useful documentation it can reasonably have. --Donnie -- Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com djb@donniebarnes.com "Bah." Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. V. Bats, when dipped in batter and deep fried, still taste pretty bad. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA12252 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:04:18 +1000 Received: (qmail 1090 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 21:01:21 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 21:01:21 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:09:34 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Alessandro Rubini Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Banner Ads? Banner Ads? Message-ID: <19990927220934.A3781@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990927144541.00621@morgana.systemy.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=jRHKVT23PllUwdXP; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <19990927144541.00621@morgana.systemy.it>; from Alessandro Rubini on Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 02:45:41PM +0200 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/620 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 02:45:41PM +0200, Alessandro Rubini wrote: > I agree. While I agree we must offer sth for the prize we get, the > current setup is definitely bad -- a monitor deserves much less, and > in any case we should never offer such a front position to any > sponsor. Agreed. I think we shouldn't do this again. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN+/O/d+QeWug/qfFAQHBogQAmhK7gtQKy2WR/em02oU0eADyXkAhepyq MjI228Eh4XzbMiLffcnA6VvTUZI0yCz7d87o8XOP+4OOk/YzFiaQKfplEqNY69V1 R3pOBGv77uOvaGK37xVsPeRyd9aZ0WbbIGxoIc/soytphoAobg4eZqxrtnAnECP/ X7VgzeuNksU= =CJ68 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id DAA11224 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:58:39 +1000 Received: (qmail 6148 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 17:58:31 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 17:58:31 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:08:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mr. Poet" X-Sender: jd@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com To: Donnie Barnes cc: Guylhem Aznar , "Mr. Poet" , Vladimir Vuksan , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199909271752.NAA03210@chef.meridian.redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <9Vf-0D.A.8fB.HB773@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/610 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hello, I do not think that we are looking for a single license. My understanding is that we are looking for a set of criteria that the license must meet. For example I do know that the: GPL DGPL(When officially released) OPL and the current LDP all work. Personally I don't care what license you use, I just think that if you drop maintainership of a document that we (THE LDP) have the right to change the license. The copyright info stays, but the license itself can change. Poet LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Donnie Barnes wrote: > > > > We are also working on producing an online disccusion area plus licensing > > > issues. > > > > A new LDP manifesto with a license guide will be written. > > I suppose we should identify problems with the current manifesto before > re-writing it. Some here have problems with it, others (like myself) > like the current one. I guess the new leader wins? I personally > don't care for that structure. > > I still feel that any license that conforms to the current manifesto > is fine for the LDP. If you require a single license *or* require > that the license allow document modification by third parties, I will > no longer consider contributing LDP documentation. (No, I haven't > done much lately, but I certainly wouldn't consider doing more in the > future, either.) > > We've had these arguments a gazillion times. The LDP was originally > setup more as a set of tools for writing documentation as well as an > archive for the things that were produced. That allowed the LDP to > enjoy great success in having *the* largest volume of works collected > in one place that were *freely redistributable*. Your changes will > move the LDP more into the realm of a tightly controlled project with > a much more narrow agenda and likely less works available for consumption. > Sure, they might have better QC, but they may also leave things unanswered > because the document that did have the answers didn't fit the LDP > criteria. I think that's a shame. > > > --Donnie > > -- > Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com djb@donniebarnes.com "Bah." > Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. V. > Bats, when dipped in batter and deep fried, still taste pretty bad. > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id GAA11909 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 06:24:27 +1000 Received: (qmail 15521 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 20:18:39 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 20:18:39 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: wheeler@ida.org From: "David Wheeler" Message-Id: <990927161614.ZM16521@aphrodite.csed.ida.org> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:16:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: Donnie Barnes "Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)" (Sep 27, 1:52pm) References: <199909271752.NAA03210@chef.meridian.redhat.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: djb@redhat.com, guylhem@oeil.qc.ca, ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/615 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org >I suppose we should identify problems with the current manifesto before >re-writing it. Some here have problems with it, others (like myself) >like the current one. The current "license" is total garbage. As Linux becomes more widely used, you'd better figure out how to make an accurate license, set of licenses, or criteria for a license. Otherwise people will line up to sue or misuse you. How is it garbage? Let me count the ways: 1. Most seriously, the current license does NOT permit others to distribute unchanged documents, even though that seems to be the point of the project. That's stupid, and needs fixing. Think that's just a minor legal nit and wouldn't be exploited? You're naive. The U.S. in particular is lawsuit-happy. 2.. Two of the 5 bulleted items ONLY apply to one document: the "Linux Installation and Getting Started" document. Here's the text: * Any translation or derivative work of Linux Installation and Getting Started must be approved by the author in writing before distribution. * If you distribute Linux Installation and Getting Started in part, instructions for obtaining the complete version of this manual must be included, and a means for obtaining a complete version provided. If you mean it to apply to all LDP documents, then say so. 3. The other three points have no useful effect. The phrase "The copyright notice above and this permission notice must be preserved complete on all complete or partial copies." is a wise thing to say, but even if you didn't say that its legal status would be unchanged. Also, absent any particular permission, you have to ask permission for anything including translation. Quoting the GPL, under its own terms, is always okay. So, you have a license that can replaced with the empty string (for other than the Installation & Getting Started doc). Bzzt. Bad license. Bad, bad license. Must be fixed. A license is code executed by malicious programs that prefer to exploit vulnerabilities in it. And they get paid millions of dollars to find exploits. Most people don't want to write licenses, and they're hard to get right. At least provide a default" license & guidelines for minimum acceptability. I'd rather write code & docs, not licenses. >Personally I don't care what license you use, I just think that if you >drop maintainership of a document that we (THE LDP) have the >right to change the license. The copyright info stays, but the license >itself can change. If _that's_ what you want, then you must say so in a license. Otherwise, the author has the right to never update a document again. Which indeed is what's happening. The LDP does _NOT_ have the right to change a document's license unless the authors unanimously agree to it or its license permits it. The copyright law says that an author has all rights to their product. If they want to give some rights away (e.g., allow redistribution, modification, or forking) then they have to say so. BTW, an author can always create a GPL'ed document, then create a proprietary version themselves. So placing a document under the GPL doesn't prevent the author from later sending it to a publisher under a different license. The other way's possible too, though usually publishers have rights that prevent it. -- --- David A. Wheeler wheeler@ida.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0003 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA12238 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:03:56 +1000 Received: (qmail 452 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 21:00:51 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 21:00:51 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:47:35 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Donnie Barnes Cc: Guylhem Aznar , "Mr. Poet" , Vladimir Vuksan , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) Message-ID: <19990927214735.C3665@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990926182334.C1752@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <199909271752.NAA03210@chef.meridian.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <199909271752.NAA03210@chef.meridian.redhat.com>; from Donnie Barnes on Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 01:52:42PM -0400 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/618 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 01:52:42PM -0400, Donnie Barnes wrote: > like the current one. I guess the new leader wins? I personally=20 > don't care for that structure. I don't think anyone "wins" ; people reported problems with current manifesto (seen the threads on ldp-discuss?), so I think we should fix it. However, if more people think it is perfect right now, we'll keep it. > I still feel that any license that conforms to the current manifesto > is fine for the LDP. If you require a single license *or* require > that the license allow document modification by third parties, I will > no longer consider contributing LDP documentation. (No, I haven't > done much lately, but I certainly wouldn't consider doing more in the > future, either.) It will be the same with next manifesto ! DGPL, GPL, OPL... There won't be a single license, but a set of license, a license guide and a preferred license. You'll be free to pick up the one you best like (with restrictions for thirs parties modification if you pick the DGPL, or less restrictions with the GPL or the OPL) > in one place that were *freely redistributable*. Your changes will > move the LDP more into the realm of a tightly controlled project with > a much more narrow agenda and likely less works available for consumption. What will happens when more license problems arise ? We can't just ignore them and hope nobody will notice. > Sure, they might have better QC, but they may also leave things unanswered > because the document that did have the answers didn't fit the LDP > criteria. I think that's a shame. He's a short sum up : - the document must be released under a free license (with details in the new manifesto, a license guide, and a set of license) - the document must be freely redistributable and printable, but short exclusivity (less than 1 year) can be given for initial publication - the author must accept, if he can't be reached for more than 2 month or if he ever decides to stop maintaining his document, that someone else will be given the right to maintain his document (while acknowledging previous author of course) under the same license Not only must we write free documentation, but we must also ensure it will remain free and available. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN+/J19+QeWug/qfFAQGukAP6AuFh/39NUr32FH7b5tDEfaQwk0sDT1Hy zzLlvICsHrZAX0nIFQXN7cCeuvVz2gh7VWMjWaSelUPc0cEN2ZrY5B2+SRNg3kgq /DqoDgKBBW1AfyKsSPuG0WNm5s8nj/qJFfcmTZ2+m+wixkZMsO8t4lDPcXHvkcBE AeNZqxAJuqY= =t+cF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fOHHtNG4YXGJ0yqR-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA12245 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:04:09 +1000 Received: (qmail 598 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 21:00:59 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 21:00:59 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:36:07 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Donnie Barnes Cc: "Mr. Poet" , Guylhem Aznar , Vladimir Vuksan , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) Message-ID: <19990927213607.B3665@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <199909271807.OAA03397@chef.meridian.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <199909271807.OAA03397@chef.meridian.redhat.com>; from Donnie Barnes on Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 02:07:31PM -0400 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: <-lE6xB.A.-I.Ks973@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/619 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 02:07:31PM -0400, Donnie Barnes wrote: > The problem is that it is impossible to define "drop maintainership" in > a general way. =20 >=20 > I still don't see this as much of an issue. Rarely can anyone point me > to an example where this has happened and a document that was *useful* Please read my previous message : it has just happened. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN+/HJ9+QeWug/qfFAQH9uwP/cANkzCiDbq+OOO6P7TxA/qQvUA3UHKKB ocCWtJpVdaiFLD/KEE+sGiCknnURJ1SlB7aB5/E1KgZXks+/bAsey95uDOKOeje7 HzoJAnsiXXY/cyWfmhFPm8pvgFVXfr8/BM2Wxoi6zsYammRQ5lQWFHx7fUHCm6qQ bRmKQyP+fK8= =6+Hk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id VAA30928 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:46:40 +1000 Received: (qmail 9737 invoked by uid 38); 30 Sep 1999 11:46:23 -0000 Resent-Date: 30 Sep 1999 11:46:23 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:46:55 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Donnie Barnes Cc: Guylhem Aznar , Vladimir Vuksan , LDP discuss Subject: Re: QC volunteers? (Was: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd)) Message-ID: <19990929004655.B1019@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990927213432.A3665@victis.oeil.qc.ca> <199909281805.OAA04268@chef.meridian.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=f2QGlHpHGjS2mn6Y; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <199909281805.OAA04268@chef.meridian.redhat.com>; from Donnie Barnes on Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 02:05:53PM -0400 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/688 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --f2QGlHpHGjS2mn6Y Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 02:05:53PM -0400, Donnie Barnes wrote: > There you go again. You're trying to make the LDP something that it > doesn't have to be. Namely, a controlling and manipulative organization. I just want to keep documentation free. > content. If an author wants to give that to you, fine. But otherwise, > it's his and you simply MUST respect that. Why is this so hard? I fully respect his wishes, anyway I'd like to avoid that in the future, when we won't have only *indivuduals* but also *companies* who'll hold copyrights. This will happen someday. > author to replicate it *just* for the LDP. No, the LDP doesn't cover > the topic. Fine. Someone does, though. Did you ever consider the fact > that even if he does remove his docs from the LDP that he might still lea= ve > them under a license that allows the LDP to simply pull them anyway? Sur= e, I re-asked if he really wanted to remove his documents from the LDP. I will not go against his wishes. If he feels like providing a free version, fine, else will do without it, and someday find an author who'll want to cover that. > Sheesh, methinks the LDP is starting to stray in directions that I don't > care to see it go. What if a "deadly blockade of battleships" (I'm also a big fan of TPM, I've seen it 5 times...) from some greedy commercial organisation endanger the LDP in a near future ? Vladimir is free to do whatever he wants with his document, but if commercial printers provide us help or documents, we'll have to think of the license issue. I haven't any personnal grief with Vladimir, but I fear some commercial printer could one day do the same. And *that* would be a problem. What if Alan Cox or some famous kernel hacker was hired by Microsoft and decided to remove his code from the linux kernel ? I think the GPL prevents this. I just want the same for documents. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --f2QGlHpHGjS2mn6Y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN/FFX9+QeWug/qfFAQFTtwP8Dx1MdF22V5DyRJFspPsW68AmqgAZCkgy K3W4ey9ikloy/y4RlOd/pCBoNvmZn4fVWiEuxBvd4Chh2id5QgupwjS7yoS4/9/7 vkZKD4cCtKr0cC41TaBOoOWKM1n1RcjFfoHf0qVQcrKHdl4Uo5DzhCRlCaIzQ/+h QsebMtan/Mc= =fbFe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --f2QGlHpHGjS2mn6Y-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id VAA30937 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:46:47 +1000 Received: (qmail 9972 invoked by uid 38); 30 Sep 1999 11:46:39 -0000 Resent-Date: 30 Sep 1999 11:46:39 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 00:53:47 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: Donnie Barnes Cc: David Wheeler , guylhem@oeil.qc.ca, ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) Message-ID: <19990929005347.D1019@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <990927161614.ZM16521@aphrodite.csed.ida.org> <199909281424.KAA01396@chef.meridian.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=2Z2K0IlrPCVsbNpk; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <199909281424.KAA01396@chef.meridian.redhat.com>; from Donnie Barnes on Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:24:26AM -0400 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/689 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --2Z2K0IlrPCVsbNpk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 10:24:26AM -0400, Donnie Barnes wrote: > minimum acceptability. There are already plenty of licenses out there > that meet those for you to choose from. You can write your own if you > want. This is exactly the situation I *like*. If the LDP wants to > have a suggested license (or a set of them), that's fine to. What I > don't want is the LDP to REQUIRE A PARTICULAR license. Once again : NO PARTICULAR LICENSE WILL BE REQUIRED. One will certainly be suggested if it best fit LDP needs, but that's all. You'll have a manifesto, a set of licenses and the freedom to pick or write the one you want. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --2Z2K0IlrPCVsbNpk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN/FG+t+QeWug/qfFAQHAMwP/VdGs6o2Hcc1fkbPWjpyGJ83M+S2cTBib IUiZ9xq/H2SgxwNE56nelyhdl2m3go3k9O9Jb1j/22DaSX96iVSQy0KrFtTfi8xx XY+UOy/NzfnmbN84JNg+ugAicJhGFcIgWPmfPjsvMdMrv+wnlVFoyGrCMOyz17lX Ci3Z1lSIG8c= =9sAC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2Z2K0IlrPCVsbNpk-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id JAA15197 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:06:30 +1000 Received: (qmail 9807 invoked by uid 38); 29 Aug 1999 23:06:02 -0000 Resent-Date: 29 Aug 1999 23:06:02 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: psj@mustec.eu.org Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 00:02:40 +0100 (GMT) From: P Jenner To: poet@linuxports.com cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: LDP proposal Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"knhR_.A.xYC.Zzby3"@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/285 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org OK I have some comments on the new proposal. Would it also be possible for you to number sections of the proposal report style as that would allow myself and others to comment on it and discuss it more easily. 1) Mission Statement: I both see and use the LDP docs not only as sources of info for Linux but sources of info for other OSs running Open Source software and (more reasonably) for the Open Source software itself. This applies particularly to GNU Mach and GNU software under other UNICES (eg BSD). I think this should be reflected in the mission statement so that non-Linux users still look to the LDP in relevant instances. 2) A specific licence is not as good a solution as a group of acceptable licences (such as the Open Source Definition) in the eyes of most who discuss the matter. 3) I think all (?) agree on the move to an LDP specific domain (linuxdoc.org) through which the LDP can have an Internet presence whether it be by World Wide Web, ftp, CVS, e-mail, mailing-list, NNTP news or IRC. The linuxdoc.org domain should be used to the full as a "one-stop shop" for LDP related needs. This allows users easy access to the relevant information and can attract more help to the LDP. 4) In line with a move to the linuxdoc.org domain I believe most people interested in a quality LDP will also want to see an improved web presence as you suggest. 5) The Board structure you propose is interesting but you make no argument why it should be that way. 6) Again the voting issue is not argued for in the proposal - why is it necessary? I have worked on a number of successful projects and none have had such a formal voting proceedure. I hope these comments prove useful. Paul ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul S Jenner GNU/Linux Advocate E-mail: psj@mustec.eu.org WWW: http://www.mustec.eu.org/~psj/ UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL IS NOT WELCOME AT THIS ADDRESS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id EAA21421 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 04:15:57 +1000 Received: (qmail 27617 invoked by uid 38); 10 Sep 1999 18:15:43 -0000 Resent-Date: 10 Sep 1999 18:15:42 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: mdw@bhikku.CS.Berkeley.EDU Message-Id: <199909101815.LAA10546@mnemosyne.CS.Berkeley.EDU> To: "Mr. Poet" cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org From: Matt Welsh Reply-To: Matt Welsh Subject: Re: Let the war begin In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:03:16 PDT." Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:18:15 -0700 Sender: mdw@bhikku.CS.Berkeley.EDU Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/365 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org This is fine, but let's make the front page look as nice as the original, at least, so it doesn't look like the LDP is taking a big step back in its design and scope. Retaining the logo would be a first step. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id EAA21468 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 04:23:34 +1000 Received: (qmail 2958 invoked by uid 38); 10 Sep 1999 18:23:27 -0000 Resent-Date: 10 Sep 1999 18:23:27 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: mdw@bhikku.CS.Berkeley.EDU Message-Id: <199909101823.LAA10939@mnemosyne.CS.Berkeley.EDU> To: "Mr. Poet" cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org From: Matt Welsh Reply-To: Matt Welsh Subject: Re: Let the war begin In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:30:16 PDT." Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:26:12 -0700 Sender: mdw@bhikku.CS.Berkeley.EDU Resent-Message-ID: <5iu7kB.A.Fu.fyU23@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/367 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org "Mr. Poet" writes: > Hello, > > O.k. I am going to assume you are viewing in Netscape or Lynx both of > which do not support style sheets correctly so you will not see the color. It's probably not good to design these pages for IE, since this is a Linux site. Please use only standard HTML functions which Netscape and IE both support. The pages looked fine before, without style sheets. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id EAA21528 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 04:35:34 +1000 Received: (qmail 8561 invoked by uid 38); 10 Sep 1999 18:33:27 -0000 Resent-Date: 10 Sep 1999 18:33:27 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: psj@mustec.eu.org Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 19:27:45 +0100 (GMT) From: P Jenner To: poet@linuxports.com cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: New web site Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/369 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Good first impressions - even happier that something is moving on this issue :-) I do have some useful comments though: 1) Good that the page is browser independent and works in lynx - I often use lynx to view the LDP. 2) Under the mirrors section on the main page you say "the date on this page is not within.." but it is unclear which date on this page you mean. 3) It would be more convenient to split up the old docs list page and put the list for Guides, HOWTOs, man pages etc on separate pages. 4) A how to get involved or current LDP projects page would be good to entice in volunteers. 5) The search is broken. Put in "3Dfx" and it does not even return the 3Dfx HOWTO :-( 6) Sections for the LDP translations would be nice too. Something like "http://www.linuxdoc.org/es/" for spanish etc. Then everything else could reside under "http://www.linuxdoc.org/en/" and the main page could point to the english index page. For foreign mirrors this may be a useful and positive system as both foreign speakers and native speakers may be presnt in a ny given land and do not want to use a mirror (eg a Spanish speaker in the US does not want to use the spanish mirror site and an English speaker in Spain does not want to use the US mirror). I hope these help, Paul ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul S Jenner GNU/Linux Advocate E-mail: psj@mustec.eu.org WWW: http://www.mustec.eu.org/~psj/ UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL IS NOT WELCOME AT THIS ADDRESS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id QAA24988 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 16:45:16 +1000 Received: (qmail 27315 invoked by uid 38); 11 Sep 1999 06:45:02 -0000 Resent-Date: 11 Sep 1999 06:45:02 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: iolea@tsai.es Message-ID: <37D9FDBC.FD7BA4BB@tsai.es> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 08:59:08 +0200 From: Ismael Olea X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [es] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Mr. Poet" CC: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Logo Contest References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Infomail-Id: 937031773.0AEB010A811067.11773 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/381 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Mr. Poet escribió: > > Hello, > > How do people feel about holding a logo contest for the LDP logo? At Lucas we have a logo based on a work of Picasso about "Don Quixote". Picasso and Cervantes are very well world artists. If you want, it can be the LDP logo. You can see it on http://lucas.hispalinux.es/icons/pinpanza.gif -- Ismael Olea TSAI, Área Sistemas, Unix tlf. 91-7548748 iolea@tsai.es olea@iname.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id RAA25111 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:11:16 +1000 Received: (qmail 12281 invoked by uid 38); 11 Sep 1999 07:11:09 -0000 Resent-Date: 11 Sep 1999 07:11:09 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: iolea@tsai.es Message-ID: <37DA03EE.DD8F1215@tsai.es> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 09:25:34 +0200 From: Ismael Olea X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [es] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Mr. Poet" CC: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Let the war begin References: <199909101823.LAA10939@mnemosyne.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Infomail-Id: 937034221.4461010A811066.14221 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/382 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Matt Welsh escribió: > It's probably not good to design these pages for IE, since this is a Linux > site. Please use only standard HTML functions which Netscape and IE both > support. The pages looked fine before, without style sheets. Yes. Please validate your html code against: http://validator.w3.org/ :-) -- Ismael Olea TSAI, Área Sistemas, Unix tlf. 91-7548748 iolea@tsai.es olea@iname.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id KAA16624 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:30:05 +1000 Received: (qmail 29434 invoked by uid 38); 13 Sep 1999 00:26:45 -0000 Resent-Date: 13 Sep 1999 00:26:44 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: pjones@metalab.unc.edu X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: pjones owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 20:21:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Jones X-Sender: pjones@titan.oit.unc.edu To: "Mr. Poet" cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: If you are interested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/405 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org most excellent. i just wrote to greg ferg to say that we have four search engines on metalab which you may use. heck you could offer choices. we index the whole thing with infoseek which has very very powerful options and is very quick. you can easily set up a search limited to LDP from only a html page. problem: not open source we are also indexing the whole thing with htdig--which is what i assume you are using. problem: nearly feature free we used Isearch for linsearch, aka searching the LSMs and the linux archives. openSource and very nice for even complex template-based searching. problem: no stemming or other advanced features excite does have a free engine which we have used. i'm not as happy with it as i am with infoseek--that may just be personal taste. but problem: not openSource of course you can install others too ========================================================================== Paul Jones "We must protect our precious bodily fluids!" General Jack D Ripper http://MetaLab.unc.edu/pjones/ at the Site Formerly Known As SunSITE.unc.edu pjones@MetaLab.unc.edu voice: (919) 962-7600 fax: (919) 962-8071 =========================================================================== -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id MAA17088 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 1999 12:03:56 +1000 Received: (qmail 28339 invoked by uid 38); 13 Sep 1999 02:03:32 -0000 Resent-Date: 13 Sep 1999 02:03:32 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 20:49:04 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim To: poet@linuxports.com cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: projects page Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/410 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hello, I'd like to see an LDP projects page, or at least a HOWTO projects page on docs that are currently being worked on. Can we make this happen? I've also asked Poet about adding a HOWTO-Updates page, which will show what HOWTOs (FAQs, mini's, etc.) have been processed/updated/uploaded recently. I'd like this to not be a "fixed" doc that will be overwritten, but rather something that shows a "history" of updated docs. Comments/suggestions welcomed! Best Regards, Tim -- Linux HOWTO coordinator http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO tjbynum@metalab.unc.edu, linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu (HOWTO's) tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net (Home) tbynum@rineco.com (Work) http://wallybox.cei.net:5119/cgi-bin/pageme.cgi (Alpha Pager) D I P C The system that enables you to write distributed programs.......the easy way! http://wallybox.cei.net/dipc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id OAA24639 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:50:55 +1000 Received: (qmail 25011 invoked by uid 38); 14 Sep 1999 04:50:48 -0000 Resent-Date: 14 Sep 1999 04:50:48 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: garym@maya.dyndns.org Sender: garym@mail.wccweb.com To: "Mr. Poet" Cc: P Jenner , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org, ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org, recipient list not shown: ; Subject: Re: LDP bug-tracker References: From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Date: 14 Sep 1999 00:50:34 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: Gary Lawrence Murphy Organization: TeleDynamics --- the Art of Being There X-Url: http://www.teledyn.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/435 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org I have a tarball of the WREQ help-desk system if anyone wants it. It's only about 90k of perl code when compressed. I'm interested in any others if there are open source problem trackers, and especially any based on Postgres (bugzilla is tied to the non-OS MySQL) -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Telecom Services : Internet Consulting : http://www.teledyn.com Linux Writers Workshop Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-hack/ "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." -- (Miles Davis) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id XAA21750 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 23:33:24 +1000 Received: (qmail 24762 invoked by uid 38); 18 Sep 1999 13:33:09 -0000 Resent-Date: 18 Sep 1999 13:33:09 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: garym@maya.dyndns.org Sender: garym@mail.wccweb.com To: "Mr. Poet" Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Subject: But where do we stand on OPL? References: From: Gary Lawrence Murphy Date: 18 Sep 1999 09:32:14 -0400 Message-ID: Reply-To: Gary Lawrence Murphy Organization: TeleDynamics --- the Art of Being There X-Url: http://www.teledyn.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/480 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org I had an email from Alessandro this morning. His understanding is that a document published under the OPL (esp OPL with the option to reserve book printing rights) prevents a document from being included in the LDP. Is this true? What is the stance of the LDP on the open publishing licence? While I can agree with people like Richard Stallman that the very best work can only come out of GPL-style restrictions, it is also true that some wonderful software is less restrictive. For example, the BSD licences and other have no restrictions against arbitrary restrictions in the licence, and even the Linux kernel allows for (but does not distribute) non-GPL modules. If we take a 100%-free stance as dogma, we miss an opportunity to have the LDP include professionally edited and corporately sponsored documents; allowing for some "mostly free" content might require the multi-tier classification I wrote about before, but provides a means for the LDP to leverage rather than compete with publishers like ORA, IDG and MCP (who, on the other hand, freely leverage the LDP to pad thier books) -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Telecom Services : Internet Consulting : http://www.teledyn.com Linux Writers Workshop Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-hack/ "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." -- (Miles Davis) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id UAA07251 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:38:39 +1000 Received: (qmail 3634 invoked by uid 38); 19 Sep 1999 10:38:28 -0000 Resent-Date: 19 Sep 1999 10:38:28 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@victis.oeil.qc.ca Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:22:58 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: {poet} Cc: Tim , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: linuxdoc.org: copyright and Manifesto Message-ID: <19990919002258.A973@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <19990916172117.B6135@albert.animats.net> <199909181456.HAA06540@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <199909181456.HAA06540@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com>; from {poet} on Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 07:41:26AM -0700 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/496 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 07:41:26AM -0700, {poet} wrote: > Personally I still think it is stupid that we allow LICENSING of=20 > documentation. The GPL is not a documentation license. People have=20 > stated that it will work for documentation, this may be true but it is > still a little backwards.. We asked RMS to write a DGPL, it will be ready in a near future. I think we should prefer it to any other license. However, each author would be free to choose any other license, we could just recommand DGPL. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN+QQwt+QeWug/qfFAQETCQP/ZGGgCjbahbjG/CBlez71eqH5eo/hXGZK JUIzvAov41JJjjPmDhm6eqMgCmb+tB3S3T0COuU2/mmm9nqcGXGIuvDfGfIWpVmA yZiCjeJgWyq+N7PS6OWAWigEcwjwU8xSpciKdVjR9rbGTm0JOP7d/aSILN6QJxQV w2+C/Dx8yb0= =ybvG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id EAA09236 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 04:03:13 +1000 Received: (qmail 26235 invoked by uid 38); 19 Sep 1999 18:02:35 -0000 Resent-Date: 19 Sep 1999 18:02:35 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: pjones@metalab.unc.edu X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: pjones owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 13:59:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Jones X-Sender: pjones@titan.oit.unc.edu To: "Mr. Poet" cc: Tim , Yves Bellefeuille , LDP discuss Subject: Re: Are we good enough ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/506 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org i regularly get html in my messages and as attachment at metalab. could it be tim's e-mail? can we test? On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Mr. Poet wrote: > I wonder if this emailer is stripping the html > > > LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com > LDP - http://www.linuxdoc.org > > On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Tim wrote: > > > > > > I sent the upgrade in both text and HTML format. I'm sending it again -- > > > for the fourth time. > > Again....I only received the doc in text format. > > > > I've apologized for any delays.....that's all I can do. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Tim > > > > -- > > Linux HOWTO coordinator http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO > > tjbynum@metalab.unc.edu, linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu (HOWTO's) > > tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net (Home) > > tbynum@rineco.com (Work) > > http://wallybox.cei.net:5119/cgi-bin/pageme.cgi (Alpha Pager) > > > > D I P C > > The system that enables you to write distributed programs.......the > > easy way! > > http://wallybox.cei.net/dipc/ > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > > ========================================================================== Paul Jones "We must protect our precious bodily fluids!" General Jack D Ripper http://MetaLab.unc.edu/pjones/ at the Site Formerly Known As SunSITE.unc.edu pjones@MetaLab.unc.edu voice: (919) 962-7600 fax: (919) 962-8071 =========================================================================== -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id DAA04119 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 03:58:11 +1000 Received: (qmail 32586 invoked by uid 38); 26 Sep 1999 17:58:00 -0000 Resent-Date: 26 Sep 1999 17:58:00 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: mdw@bhikku.CS.Berkeley.EDU Message-Id: <199909261757.KAA28873@mnemosyne.CS.Berkeley.EDU> To: "Mr. Poet" Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org From: Matt Welsh Reply-To: Matt Welsh Subject: Re: Help compiling SGML In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:40:36 PDT." Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 11:00:52 -0700 Sender: mdw@bhikku.CS.Berkeley.EDU Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/576 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Josh - Just a quick comment on the latest site design. Can you refrain from using fixed-size frames on the Linuxdoc pages? Specifying the width of frames using percentages is much nicer. As it stands now I have to grow my Netscape window to more than 800 pixels wide in order to see everything -- this goes against good Web design taste and looks terrible on my laptop. It's best to err on the side of being VERY "user friendly" on the Linuxdoc pages -- remember that this is the first point of contact for many new Linux users. And just to add my two cents on the licensing issue: It's probably best to recommend a particular license for new authors, but not force people to adhere to a single license. This only reduces the number of authors willing to contribute. Thanks, Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id EAA04318 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 04:36:16 +1000 Received: (qmail 2355 invoked by uid 38); 26 Sep 1999 18:36:07 -0000 Resent-Date: 26 Sep 1999 18:36:07 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 18:23:34 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: "Mr. Poet" Cc: Vladimir Vuksan , ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org, ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) Message-ID: <19990926182334.C1752@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="QKdGvSO+nmPlgiQ/"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: ; from Mr. Poet on Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 04:01:02PM -0700 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/577 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --QKdGvSO+nmPlgiQ/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 04:01:02PM -0700, Mr. Poet wrote: > O.k. I am going to try and stop this right now. First CVS is under > development and expected to working by mid-october. Second we are also > working on a FTP infrastructure, which in fact already exists but does not > have much bandwidth. I will try to make it work ASAP. (BTW, do you have finished your part of the slashdot article ?) > We are also working on producing an online disccusion area plus licensing > issues. A new LDP manifesto with a license guide will be written. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Save East Timor: http://altern.org/spoirier/timor.html http://www.pst-timor= .org --QKdGvSO+nmPlgiQ/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN+5Iht+QeWug/qfFAQGmswP/cJWw17NKoG4eGj665rlnpFLHvwKK9Yyl ududqF6qBa+zyvJkC113c8YJsRkGEwmLrGJxI5wFB3B58Ary1rXd27UGtZX+nqRp jPUNBOZBJmTXubWVvy17BucqaZNVxVLsbcVNVjFSSNGKH8sS0zkwKY31RTtjKmXU OPT8fs3NJ/E= =DX2/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --QKdGvSO+nmPlgiQ/-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id MAA06809 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:21:44 +1000 Received: (qmail 9056 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 02:21:36 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 02:21:36 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: kclark@cmpu.net From: Kendall Clark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14318.54418.470835.157879@cmpu.net> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 21:21:06 -0500 (CDT) To: "Mr. Poet" Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org, ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Comments on web site. In-Reply-To: References: <14318.50402.886843.340817@cmpu.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.0 "20 minutes to Nikko" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: kclark@ntlug.org Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/594 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org >>>>> "Poet" == Poet writes: Poet> Hello, Before we make assumptions that we have no idea Poet> about, let me state that a request has been put to several Poet> people for a written history about the LDP. We have yet to Poet> receive the document. We are also in the process of creating Poet> a sponsors document and an Auhtors section to give credit Poet> where credit is due in regards to hosting, programming and Poet> all of that kind of stuff. Poet> In regards to the Core Team statement, although there are a Poet> few out there that could truly care less about who the Poet> "team" is. I can honestly say that since we have placed the Poet> members in a very visible place people have been actually Poet> been becoming positive about the project. Poet> I have been contacted on numerous occasions about "Gee, it Poet> is nice to see who I can yell at now". It has also served a Poet> great deal in helping people direct their email to the Poet> correct places instead of just one person getting all of it. Poet> So next time, try asking question as to why or what instead Poet> of crawling on a soap box. We are working extrememly hard to Poet> turn the LDP into a much better situation than it has been Poet> in recent months, be patient we are trying to rebuild a lot Poet> of this from scratch. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Patience or impatience is simply not the issue. You asked for comments, and now you seem peeved that some of them are negative. This idea of yours of "from scratch" is *exactly* the problem! This silly attitude comes through loud and clear on the site as it is, and it's just patently false. What *precisely* are you guys doing "from scratch"? After all, you started with a TON of pre-existing material. There was already a website, already a mountain of documentation (and backed up documentation), there was already an identifiable "brand", namely, "LDP". If you can't see how inappropriately self-promotive the site is, I suggest you compare it to 10 or 20 of your favorite free software projects. Are any of them so upfront about the "core team"? I don't think so. You asked for comments. You've gotten some from two different people, both of which suggest, at least, a modulation of the way the "core team" is being presented. Choose to do with it what you will, you did solicit feedback. If you don't like it, that's fine. But distorting the history of the LDP by claiming to be doing much of anything "from scratch" is patently false. Best, Kendall Clark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id QAA08008 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:28:30 +1000 Received: (qmail 4962 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 06:28:23 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 06:28:23 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: bf347@lafn.org Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 23:28:09 -0700 Message-Id: <199909270628.AA03063@lafn.org> From: bf347@lafn.org (David Lawyer) To: poet@linuxports.com Subject: Re: Comments on web site. Cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Reply-To: bf347@lafn.org Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/600 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Poet wrote: > >In regards to the Core Team statement, although there are a few out there >that could truly care less about who the "team" is. I can honestly say >that since we have placed the members in a very visible place people have >been actually been becoming positive about the project. Most of the people who come to the site are looking for info. On my lynx browser on a small screen, the core team takes up most of the first screen. It's OK to have them on the first screen but they should not come first. They need to be compactly arranged. The old site had a few links on a single line with everything single spaced. Now it's only a couple of words per line with double spacing. Thus I think that links to the HOWTOs should come first on the page (after a modest LDP title). And they should be more compactly arranged to accomodate large print on small screens (like my text-terminal). David Lawyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id BAA10673 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:54:57 +1000 Received: (qmail 10170 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 15:54:49 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 15:54:49 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: mdw@bhikku.CS.Berkeley.EDU Message-Id: <199909271554.IAA19200@mnemosyne.CS.Berkeley.EDU> To: "Mr. Poet" cc: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org From: Matt Welsh Reply-To: Matt Welsh Subject: Re: LDP web site, etc. In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 27 Sep 1999 07:45:10 PDT." Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:58:04 -0700 Sender: mdw@bhikku.CS.Berkeley.EDU Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/606 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > I have also considered running > banners for other OSS sites the way that linux.com does but that will have > to wait until more things come around the corner. I hate banners. They're on practically every web page I can think of; wouldn't it be nice if the LDP were a bannerless oasis in the desert of the World Wide Web? There are other ways to promote other OSS projects (a list of links, for example). Banners waste bandwidth and annoy the hell out of people with slow modems. Let's chuck 'em! Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id EAA11281 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 04:08:00 +1000 Received: (qmail 11218 invoked by uid 38); 27 Sep 1999 18:07:53 -0000 Resent-Date: 27 Sep 1999 18:07:53 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: djb@redhat.com Message-Id: <199909271807.OAA03397@chef.meridian.redhat.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: "Mr. Poet" cc: Guylhem Aznar , Vladimir Vuksan , ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: General Positive Feedback re: revision of site (fwd) In-reply-to: from "Mr. Poet" on Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:08:02 PDT. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 14:07:31 -0400 From: Donnie Barnes Resent-Message-ID: <38C18.A.JvC.5J773@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/611 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > Personally I don't care what license you use, I just think that if you > drop maintainership of a document that we (THE LDP) have the > right to change the license. The copyright info stays, but the license > itself can change. The problem is that it is impossible to define "drop maintainership" in a general way. I still don't see this as much of an issue. Rarely can anyone point me to an example where this has happened and a document that was *useful* had to be orphaned. Why impose restrictions for a problem that just never happens? --Donnie -- Donnie Barnes http://www.donniebarnes.com djb@donniebarnes.com "Bah." Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. V. Bats, when dipped in batter and deep fried, still taste pretty bad. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id UAA11614 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 20:56:56 +1000 Received: (qmail 8881 invoked by uid 38); 29 Aug 1999 10:56:46 -0000 Resent-Date: 29 Aug 1999 10:56:46 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: borto@dei.unipd.it Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:29:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Giovanni Bortolozzo X-Sender: borto@dylan.my.org Reply-To: borto@dei.unipd.it To: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Subject: My 2 cents on "LDP - New Direction" In-Reply-To: <37BDB0FF.171BA381@tu-harburg.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"8rUYBD.A.oKC.uHRy3"@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/270 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hi, I'm ones of the coordinators of ILDP (Italian Linux Documentation Project). We deal primarly with translations of LDP docs (HOWTOs, guides, etc.), but we produce also original documentations (see Appunti Linux the best Linux guide I see on Internet... sorry, it's only in Italian :). I've been in ILDP for 4 years now, and 2 years ago I became a coordinator. I just read "Linux Documentation Project - A new direction " (rev. 3). Here my comments (sorry for may poor English): LDP should remain a group formed vy volunteers, and then volunteers should be allowed to write that want: we cannot impose that on authour write "objectively" about a specific problem or setup, as this his _volontary_ contribution to Linux community he should be free to write about the problem as he like, referring to a specific distribution. It's useless impose to authors to be generic when they wrote, to force them to use DocBook (also because, as far I know there aren't good tools to "render" docbook sources in all the format that linuxdoc allow), to force them to use a specific licence. The author should be let free to write as they want, to use the tools they already know, to use their licence, etc. We cannot allow to loose authors 'cause someone want more burocracy, control over the project. I like actual LDP organization. As mdw said: "Leadership in the LDP is really an oxymoron, because the group doesn't need any real leadership. All it needs is someone to work hard maintaining the documentation archives, running mailing lists, posting to USENET, and working with the various paper and electronic publishers who want to redistribute LDP materials." We don't need chairman, arbitrator, a lot of coordinator... we only need one or two coordinator and as much authors as possibile (this is the only rule we have in ILDP) Ciao Giova -- Giovanni Bortolozzo or *** ITALIAN DOCS 4 LINUX : http://www.pluto.linux.it/ildp *** Quando la sorte ti e` contraria e mancato ti e` il successo, smetti di far castelli in aria e va a piangere sul ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id FAA14018 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 05:32:21 +1000 Received: (qmail 17697 invoked by uid 38); 29 Aug 1999 19:32:09 -0000 Resent-Date: 29 Aug 1999 19:32:08 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Message-Id: <199908291939.MAA15642@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com> From: "{poet}" Organization: CommandPrompt Software To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:28:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: LDP A new direction part 2 Reply-to: poet@linuxports.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11) Resent-Message-ID: <"RzO74.A.VUE.3qYy3"@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/276 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hello, Second Release 1st edit is released. http://www.linuxports.com/ldp.htm Poet Development in Real Time LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - Howto Co-Coordinator Consultants VAR Commercial Net3/(4) WWW/Intranet -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA14677 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 07:21:09 +1000 Received: (qmail 4757 invoked by uid 38); 29 Aug 1999 21:20:58 -0000 Resent-Date: 29 Aug 1999 21:20:57 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: dan@telent.net To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org cc: techwriters@linuxchix.org Subject: ANNOUNCE: CMU Common Lisp HOWTO draft From: Daniel Barlow Date: 29 Aug 1999 22:16:34 +0100 Message-ID: <87aerai8y5.fsf@tninkpad.telent.net> Lines: 32 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070095 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.95) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: Daniel Barlow Resent-Message-ID: <"nH1YwB.A.9JB.5Qay3"@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/280 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Just to show that occasionally I do things other than write to mailing lists, a draft CMU Common Lisp HOWTO is now available for critique. 36k, and about 4800 words. http://www.telent.net/lisp/howto.html Please have a look and offer advice, especially if you know one or more of - Common Lisp - English If you'd like to form an ongoing relationship with this document (i.e. get mail every time it changes), mail me. At the moment it assumes Linux because that's what I have. However the only section which is really OS-dependent is "Installation", and I'd gladly take content from anyone who has instructions or advice for other free Unixlikes. It's currently written in HTML, because that's the format that was most convenient to write. Conversion to DocBook is an option, as (I suppose, grudgingly) is LinuxDoc - if someone points me at docs that describe how to do tables in it. I wouldn't advise that people attempt to translate it until I've decided one way or the other. Your thoughts? -dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id JAA06598 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 09:52:03 +1000 Received: (qmail 2218 invoked by uid 38); 31 Aug 1999 23:36:14 -0000 Resent-Date: 31 Aug 1999 23:36:14 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: pjones@metalab.unc.edu X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: pjones owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:22:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Jones X-Sender: pjones@titan.oit.unc.edu To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: mailing list archives Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"AIK7BB.A._h.sbGz3"@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/293 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org i don't want to open a can of worms or a pandora's box, but wouldn't it be a good idea to archive the three public ldp lists (discuss, docbook, and announce) in a www accessible form? we could do that easily here using monarc or any other opensource list archivers. objections? comments? preferences? ========================================================================== Paul Jones "We must protect our precious bodily fluids!" General Jack D Ripper http://MetaLab.unc.edu/pjones/ at the Site Formerly Known As SunSITE.unc.edu pjones@MetaLab.unc.edu voice: (919) 962-7600 fax: (919) 962-8071 =========================================================================== -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id OAA07718 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 14:01:09 +1000 Received: (qmail 20664 invoked by uid 38); 1 Sep 1999 03:34:49 -0000 Resent-Date: 1 Sep 1999 03:34:48 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: richard@linsup.com Reply-To: From: "Richard Ames" To: Subject: RE: mailing list archives Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 13:21:35 +1000 Message-ID: <000101bef429$1837d020$0200a8c0@perch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Resent-Message-ID: <9Ct8jC.A.6BF.X7Jz3@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/294 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Yes - it would be good. And it would be good to know where the LDP is headed. These lists are very quite for such an important topic. Regards, Richard. > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Jones [mailto:pjones@metalab.unc.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, 1 September 1999 8:22 > To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org > Subject: mailing list archives > > > i don't want to open a can of worms or a pandora's box, but wouldn't it be > a good idea to archive the three public ldp lists (discuss, docbook, and > announce) in a www accessible form? we could do that easily here using > monarc or any other opensource list archivers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id LAA20552 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:33:18 +1000 Received: (qmail 14788 invoked by uid 38); 3 Sep 1999 01:33:01 -0000 Resent-Date: 3 Sep 1999 01:33:00 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: pjones@metalab.unc.edu X-Authentication-Warning: titan.oit.unc.edu: pjones owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 21:32:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Jones X-Sender: pjones@titan.oit.unc.edu To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org cc: Jonathan Magid , Don Sizemore Subject: LDP-MetaLab status Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/305 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org thanks to jonathan magid, we are not only virtually hosting as www.linuxdoc.org, but we are rewriting all requests to metalab.unc.edu/LDP as www.linuxdoc.org this will make sure that the links etc will migrate to www.linuxdoc.org and that new bookmarks and the like will be www.linuxdoc.org this will help if anything--god forbid--were to happen to metalab or if the ldp needs to move for any reason as well as help insure that linuxdoc is the best known name for the site jonathan also installed CVS. we have no experience with CVS but we're willing to learn. this is contingent on your and guylhem's decissions that it would be useful to have CVS services on metalab. as i understand the plan in place, there would be a sort of backoffice/QC/submissions host created by VA. this is all fine and our having CVS up is not meant to preempt that effort. it's there if and when you wish to use it (with a little tolerance for our learning curve) donald sizemore is setting up mhonarc for archiving the three public lists, ldp-discuss, ldp-announce, and ldp-docbook. we know we need to upgrade to the latest version (actually donald may have done this already). more on mhonarc at: http://www.oac.uci.edu/indiv/ehood/mhonarc.html we'll give links to guylhem, greg freg, and matt soon as we're live. if you get a test message whilst we set up the archive, please don't panic but be patient. guylhem now has an id on metalab and along with tim, greg ferg and matt are members of the same group that owns the LDP directories. ========================================================================== Paul Jones "We must protect our precious bodily fluids!" General Jack D Ripper http://MetaLab.unc.edu/pjones/ at the Site Formerly Known As SunSITE.unc.edu pjones@MetaLab.unc.edu voice: (919) 962-7600 fax: (919) 962-8071 =========================================================================== -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id MAA20689 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:00:13 +1000 Received: (qmail 31519 invoked by uid 38); 3 Sep 1999 01:59:59 -0000 Resent-Date: 3 Sep 1999 01:59:59 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: richard@linsup.com Reply-To: From: "Richard Ames" To: Subject: Bitkeeper Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:59:48 +1000 Message-ID: <000101bef5b0$00c65640$0200a8c0@perch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/306 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org You might consider Bitkeeper in place of CVS. It is being built expressly to help the Linux effort (and I expect to Linus's specification). It will be open source licensed for use on open source projects... See http://www.bitkeeper.com/bk01.html, etc. for detail. Richard Ames linsup.com, Sydney, Australia Tel: +61 2 9144-6131, Fax: +61 2 9144-6138 mailto:richard@linsup.com http://www.linsup.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Jones [mailto:pjones@metalab.unc.edu] > Sent: Friday, 3 September 1999 11:33 > To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org > Cc: Jonathan Magid; Don Sizemore > Subject: LDP-MetaLab status > > > jonathan also installed CVS. we have no experience with CVS but we're > willing to learn. this is contingent on your and guylhem's decissions that -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id XAA23816 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:32:47 +1000 Received: (qmail 13824 invoked by uid 38); 3 Sep 1999 13:32:40 -0000 Resent-Date: 3 Sep 1999 13:32:40 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: markk@cgipc.com Sender: markk@mail.cgipc.com Message-ID: <37CFCE00.222A961D@cgipc.com> Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:32:48 -0400 From: Mark Komarinski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Bitkeeper References: <000101bef5b0$00c65640$0200a8c0@perch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/309 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org We're not writing a kernel here. This sounds like it's a bit more high-powered than we want. How many LDP documents have multuple authors? CVS is in most distros and is fairly easily documented. I'd say stick with that for now. -Mark Richard Ames wrote: > > You might consider Bitkeeper in place of CVS. It is being built expressly > to help the Linux effort (and I expect to Linus's specification). It will be > open source licensed for use on open source projects... > > See http://www.bitkeeper.com/bk01.html, etc. for detail. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlo Gavazzi IPC | Mark F. Komarinski, RHCE - Compat. Engineer| 176 Second Ave | markk@cgipc.com - www.cgipc.com | Waltham, MA 02451 USA | Ph: 781-290-4800 x138 Fx: 781-290-4810 | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id DAA24794 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 03:18:18 +1000 Received: (qmail 19645 invoked by uid 38); 3 Sep 1999 17:18:07 -0000 Resent-Date: 3 Sep 1999 17:18:07 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: bf347@lafn.org Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:16:43 -0700 Message-Id: <199909031716.AA10857@lafn.org> From: bf347@lafn.org (David Lawyer) To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: [rms@gnu.org: Re: Forwarded message from rms@gnu.org re License "Guidelines"] Reply-To: bf347@lafn.org Resent-Message-ID: <-nqgLB.A.oyE.PLA03@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/310 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org ================= Begin forwarded message ================= From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) To: bf347@lafn.org Subject: Re: Forwarded message from rms@gnu.org re License "Guidelines" Date: Wed, 01 Sep This week I studied APSL version 1.1, and it does not fix the problems. Our page about APSL has a note to say so. (Please forward this.) -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id GAA25565 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 06:09:45 +1000 Received: (qmail 20764 invoked by uid 38); 3 Sep 1999 20:09:38 -0000 Resent-Date: 3 Sep 1999 20:09:38 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:26:42 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Local LDP Message-ID: <19990903152642.A911@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/311 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here's the last message. So far, only fr, es, it, de, sl, kr, id, jp and hr asked a domain name. If you are not on this list, please contact me ASAP. We will add www.XX.linuxdoc.org domains and links on linuxdoc homepage. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Anywhere/Partout: guylhem-pager \@/ oeil.qc.ca --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN8/Mkt+QeWug/qfFAQHh1gP/R5I+2M3HoG56Rupeoe4PBOFQm1XuEmN8 Jyhtn6mpUmFb6xeoTuOWUHJFB1zuUuyx9j/5sIRnRJvtFjwEuiQK754AhRkqy/xX b9zv1GAY7iZX0ZiUImsvGjdnoHPjc6EBqLFejRbUDfGz4+b/p/HCCtVjs2xMi6/j 6pMGZ0otHUE= =HcLb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id GAA25580 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 06:10:23 +1000 Received: (qmail 21087 invoked by uid 38); 3 Sep 1999 20:10:16 -0000 Resent-Date: 3 Sep 1999 20:10:16 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 21:52:34 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: LDP discuss Subject: Should we split mini HOWTOs? Message-ID: <19990903215234.A523@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/313 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I've read most of the responses to Slashdot article, and while I think we have fixes for an heavy majority of the problems reported, I'm concerned by some recurrent topic for which I had no plans right until now : giving precise answers to precise questions. For exemple, someone reported : << Could it be that with the 'userfriendly' distributions (RedHat, SuSe) nowadays less people are interested in the whole story? That could be another reason for lags in documentation. What we need is non-generic HOWTOs. Something which says "In Red Hat 6, the sendmail configuration file is created from ___ and you are supposed to modify ___ files. Changing your X fonts is done with ____", etc. >> Some weeks ago, we had long discussions about mini HOWTOs, we came to the conclusion they should be considered as plain HOWTOs. I think mini HOWTOs like "Fax-Server" or the "Lilo+something" serie (which is being rewritten by one of the new authors in one big HOWTO) should be made plain HOWTOs since they address global topics. OTOH, mini HOWTOs like "VAIO+Linux" shouldn't be called HOWTOs, but something like "Step By Step Guides", i.e. a precise guide for a precise question. We should provide this kind of documents for all kind of precise questions (even "Setting sendmail with RH6") for people who don't want to read global HOWTOs, even if the guide is only 2 pages long, for some very special topic ("Setting power-saving mode with Toshiba C110 laptops"). These "Step By Step Guides" could be submitted like standard HOWTOs, they would just go in a different directory, and be carefully indexed to ease searching in a "knowledge base" I fear this might lead to vendor dependance for some documents, but we could set strict submission policies, especially for the license (DGPL) therefore Guides like "Setting sendmail with RH6" could be adapted to "Setting sendmail with SlackWare" I'm very interested in the feedback, if we can agree I'd like to promote these Guides. It's only asking people who would not consider themselves as LDP authors to take some hours to write a clear guide for some problem they have already experienced and fixed. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Anywhere/Partout: guylhem-pager \@/ oeil.qc.ca --J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN9AnAt+QeWug/qfFAQEOpAP8CXr2hr1mhdooVDertJwG/PypKVFI1ddD DlwfLYP/2DKMAzYrLlgGeKXJcXUDT30mNLFBwKqSqJEQvmQiaXQ7x+JSCBWe03Y2 fQ7Tt1jwEpJaIhW0BI/s23dzgZks+ylIZnulQ3oyNBEYa0AIoR58YitKvmpAuWyk IbslySxXQho= =hop/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 15:25:15 +1000 (EST) From: terry@albert Subject: Re: Should we split mini HOWTOs? To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org In-Reply-To: <37D08C46.E7F9C7C4@wilcoxon.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII On 3 Sep, Scot E. Wilcoxon wrote: > It depends upon the situation. > In this case, it was really a FAQ which grew. I'm not sure how your example illustrates that. The same is true of the NET*-HOWTO, the PPP-HOWTO and others. None of this alters the fact that the major characteristic of a HOWTO that differentiates it from a Guide is that it provides step-by-step detail where-as the Guides are broader in scope and more general. If it doesn't explain How To do something it shouldn't be a HOWTO. There is an FAQ document class in the LDP suite that I think is underexploited at the expense of muddying the HOWTO waters. >> What we probably need is a document that describes the major >> differences between the major distributions ... covering the matters >> that commonly cause HOWTO authors to pull their hair out like how the >> rc files work, and versions of libc in use etc. > > For something like that, I'd suggest one document with chapters for > variants. The chapters can stand alone, yet have necessary references > to details and generalities elsewhere. Then people can design the > skeleton documents and others will plug in the details with which they > are more familiar. That's the sort of thing I had in mind, yes. Terry -- terry@albert.animats.net, terry@linux.org.au From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id NAA27607 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 13:04:15 +1000 Received: (qmail 732 invoked by uid 38); 4 Sep 1999 03:04:07 -0000 Resent-Date: 4 Sep 1999 03:04:07 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: howto@wallybox.cei.net Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 21:45:41 -0500 (CDT) From: "HOWTO \(from metalab\)" To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: RE: mailing list archives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/319 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > 4) CVS - i have not done anything on this. when i proposed doing so, i was > unaware of guylhem's plans. what he proposes in cooperation with VA would > do a fine job of managing the submissions. if he (and you) would like CVS > on MetaLab, we can put it up. I think we're quite a ways from CVS, but definately think that it is something that will be of great benefit and ease a lot of things to those willing to take the time to use it. > 5) metadata - we are interested in creating metadata that would allow > searching and finding and retrieval of linux documentation both on the LDP > site and mentioned there in the form of links. this would allow searching > for say an e-mail how-to in Italian for Debian produced in the past year > if done right. the idea would be to provide a template for the authors but > also to do a bit of catching up with what is already there. > http://metalab.unc.edu/linsearch/ will show you what can be done based on > the LSMs and software archives. > This could easily include metadata pointing to the OSWG materials too. I'm sure no one will disagree with the advantages of searching. Best Regards, Tim -- Linux HOWTO coordinator tjbynum@metalab.unc.edu, linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu (HOWTO's) tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net (Home) tbynum@rineco.com (Work) http://wallybox.cei.net:5119/cgi-bin/pageme.cgi (Alpha Pager) D I P C The system that enables you to write distributed programs.......the easy way! http://wallybox.cei.net/dipc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id NAA27619 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 13:05:21 +1000 Received: (qmail 934 invoked by uid 38); 4 Sep 1999 03:05:14 -0000 Resent-Date: 4 Sep 1999 03:05:14 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: scot@wilcoxon.org Sender: sewilco@wilcoxon.org Message-ID: <37D08C46.E7F9C7C4@wilcoxon.org> Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 22:04:38 -0500 From: "Scot E. Wilcoxon" Organization: self X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.2 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Should we split mini HOWTOs? References: <199909032257.IAA26533@albert.animats.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Old-Return-Path: Resent-Message-ID: <87bbRC.A.eO.qxI03@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/320 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > This confuses my original understanding of what HOWTO documents were > supposed to be and how they were differentiated from the Guides. The > HOWTO documents are meant to be step-by-step instructions I thought. It depends upon the situation. I created one early version of the Linux Zip Drive HOWTO. It was partly FAQ, partly step-by-step, and partly references to the proper terminology for more general things (so those who needed to learn about things such as SCSI terminators would have some idea what to look at). It was later merged with the similar document by the creator of the parallel Zip driver. In this case, it was really a FAQ which grew. > What we probably need is a document that describes the major > differences between the major distributions ... covering the matters > that commonly cause HOWTO authors to pull their hair out like how the > rc files work, and versions of libc in use etc. For something like that, I'd suggest one document with chapters for variants. The chapters can stand alone, yet have necessary references to details and generalities elsewhere. Then people can design the skeleton documents and others will plug in the details with which they are more familiar. This would encourage HOWTOs to grow into more inclusive documents when needed, yet step-by-step chapters should be available for detailed guidance. I'm using the Linuxdoc DTD and see two problems: Section markers and depth sensitive, and no cross-file documents. If there were a type of marker which required and would track the current nesting depth, and a for merging several files into one document, then it's easier to build a document in pieces and assemble them. (Yes, I recognize that Linuxdoc is a subset of tools which probably have such abilities..I just haven't learned those ML incantations yet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id NAA27702 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 13:23:43 +1000 Received: (qmail 9244 invoked by uid 38); 4 Sep 1999 03:23:35 -0000 Resent-Date: 4 Sep 1999 03:23:35 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 22:05:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: kinda off topic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/321 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hello All, I'm not enjoying the new list much b/c I can't get procmail to easily dump all the ldp email to its own folder. Is anyone using procmail and not having a problem? If so, I'd love the recipe. It just makes it really hard when mail destined for one of the LDP list(s) is destined for it's own folder, but never makes it there and then I have to go through tons of email trying to find only the LDP related email. Any help or assistance is appreciated. Sorry for the off-topic posting. Best Regards, Tim -- Linux HOWTO coordinator tjbynum@metalab.unc.edu, linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu (HOWTO's) tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net (Home) tbynum@rineco.com (Work) http://wallybox.cei.net:5119/cgi-bin/pageme.cgi (Alpha Pager) D I P C The system that enables you to write distributed programs.......the easy way! http://wallybox.cei.net/dipc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id QAA28611 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 16:25:34 +1000 Received: (qmail 32493 invoked by uid 38); 4 Sep 1999 06:23:46 -0000 Resent-Date: 4 Sep 1999 06:23:46 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Message-Id: <199909040631.XAA18013@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com> From: "{poet}" Organization: CommandPrompt Software To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:18:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: LDP Proposal Reply-to: poet@linuxports.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11) Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/322 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hello, I have released another version (yes again) of the LDP proposal I have been working on. This one is a bit unique as it eliminates the board of reviewers, instead it just references the LDP members. I have removed the Arbitrators and the Chairman which has been replaced with specific coordinators and the Leader. It is an interesting change and I would like feedback on it. Poet Joshua D. Drake Development in Real Time LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - Howto Co-Coordinator Consultants VAR Commercial Net3/(4) WWW/Intranet -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id BAA31045 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 01:42:02 +1000 Received: (qmail 6984 invoked by uid 38); 4 Sep 1999 15:41:53 -0000 Resent-Date: 4 Sep 1999 15:41:53 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: scot@wilcoxon.org Sender: sewilco@wilcoxon.org Message-ID: <37D13DA1.3985809A@wilcoxon.org> Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 10:41:21 -0500 From: "Scot E. Wilcoxon" Organization: self X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.2 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: LDP Proposal References: <199909040631.XAA18013@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Old-Return-Path: Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/326 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org {poet} wrote: > I have released another version (yes again) of the LDP proposal I have been > working on. That is nice. I don't see it at linuxports.com, nor linuxdoc.org, nor as an attachment to your announcement. Wherever you released it, it did not travel far. That's all the feedback I can give at the moment. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0003 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id CAA31347 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 02:50:36 +1000 Received: (qmail 2784 invoked by uid 38); 4 Sep 1999 16:50:29 -0000 Resent-Date: 4 Sep 1999 16:50:29 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: poet@linuxports.com Message-Id: <199909041658.JAA19955@crazypenguins.commandprompt.com> From: "{poet}" Organization: CommandPrompt Software To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 09:45:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: LDP Proposal {Location} Reply-to: poet@linuxports.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11) Resent-Message-ID: <8C5Dy.A.Xr.U3U03@murphy> Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/327 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org http://www.linuxports.com/ldp.htm Development in Real Time LinuxPorts - http://www.linuxports.com LDP - Howto Co-Coordinator Consultants VAR Commercial Net3/(4) WWW/Intranet -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0003 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id DAA31562 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 03:38:47 +1000 Received: (qmail 2064 invoked by uid 38); 4 Sep 1999 17:35:50 -0000 Resent-Date: 4 Sep 1999 17:35:50 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: bf347@lafn.org Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:28:59 -0700 Message-Id: <199909041728.AA07264@lafn.org> From: bf347@lafn.org (David Lawyer) To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: HOWTOs: QC, contents, & minis Reply-To: bf347@lafn.org Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/328 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Although the idea of QC is a good one, it's important that it not significantly delay the uploading of HOWTOs for public distribution. (via the mirror sites and in various formats). If a HOWTO is in a Beta directory in sgml format I think that relatively few people will actually use it. Thus I think that QC must be fast and take only about a day or two. Step 1 of QC should be to automatically run sgml2txt, etc. on it to see if there are errors. The sender should be automatically notified. Lars had this in operation and I used it. One thing wrong was that the sgml2info reported a few "errors" that were not really errors. But right now we don't use sgml2info so there's no problem now. To speed QC one may do a "sampled" QC where only a few samples of the work are checked. If these are OK then it passes. There needs to be times limit so that HOWTOs do not languish for weeks in a Beta Directory. I would suggest that this limit be 24 hours for updates and 4 days for new submissions. If QC doesn't happen within these time limits the HOWTO should be automatically uploaded anyway. A new submission that wasn't checked would be labelled as Beta. This should hopefully seldom happen if we have QC well covered. Once a HOWTO (or update) has been released, QC should not end. More checking is likely needed. Much of the feedback will come from readers of the HOWTO. While we could try to have people review HOWTOs, assign them grades for accuracy, clearness, completeness, etc. I think that such time could be more profitably used for improving the HOWTOs rather than critically reviewing them. One could maintain a file (archive) of reader comments for each HOWTO but this could be abused. Someone with a poor HOWTO might get friends to send in undeserved praise, while enemies of someone with a great HOWTO could bombard it with unjustified criticism. Thus you really need a moderator for such "review" pages and right now we're too shorthanded to do it. Now some comments re the content of HOWTOs. While step-by-step instructions may be OK for installation (of hardware/software) they are not very good for troubleshooting. To do effective troubleshooting one needs to understand what the hardware and software does. What step to do next in troubleshooting depends on all clues one has re the situation. Evaluation of what all the clues might imply depends on an understanding of how it works. Thus a HOWTO should explain "How it Works". It may also discuss the pros and cons of various options. This is true even for a mini-HOWTO. The HOWTO is thus a document with info designed to help you figure out how to do it. It's not necessarily step-by-step instruction. I think we should keep the mini-HOWTOs but some could become full HOWTOs. People are used to the current classification and it shouldn't be changed without compelling reasons. David Lawyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0003 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id EAA31686 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 04:04:42 +1000 Received: (qmail 25821 invoked by uid 38); 4 Sep 1999 18:04:34 -0000 Resent-Date: 4 Sep 1999 18:04:34 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: bf347@lafn.org Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 11:04:20 -0700 Message-Id: <199909041804.AA11420@lafn.org> From: bf347@lafn.org (David Lawyer) To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Howto submission bounces Reply-To: bf347@lafn.org Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/329 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org I sent howto updates to: submit-howto@lists.linuxdoc.org and it bounced. So I'm now trying the old address: linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id AAA18154 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 00:54:58 +1000 Received: (qmail 23054 invoked by uid 38); 5 Sep 1999 14:54:48 -0000 Resent-Date: 5 Sep 1999 14:54:48 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 09:37:02 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: mini's In-Reply-To: <199909050237.MAA13919@albert.animats.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/336 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > > Mini refers to size, while we should refer to specificity > > I've always interpreted 'mini' to be talking about scope rather than > size. Actually it's a combination of the 2. More over, the mini-HOWTOs are exist b/c they originated more or less as a "quick and dirty" to get something accomplished. Someone took the time to figure out how to set something up and took notes. Chances are it's not the most popular thing to do, but then again others would probably like to know how it could be accomplished so it gets published. Size does play a part, but it's certainly not the only thing and doesn't necessarily hold the most "weight" of a mini-HOWTO. Best Regards, Tim -- Linux HOWTO coordinator http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/ tjbynum@metalab.unc.edu, linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu (HOWTO's) tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net (Home) tbynum@rineco.com (Work) http://wallybox.cei.net:5119/cgi-bin/pageme.cgi (Alpha Pager) D I P C The system that enables you to write distributed programs.......the easy way! http://wallybox.cei.net/dipc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id BAA18316 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 01:29:42 +1000 Received: (qmail 5668 invoked by uid 38); 5 Sep 1999 15:29:32 -0000 Resent-Date: 5 Sep 1999 15:29:32 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:11:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: HOWTOs: QC, contents, & minis In-Reply-To: <199909041728.AA07264@lafn.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/337 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > Although the idea of QC is a good one, it's important that it not > significantly delay the uploading of HOWTOs for public distribution. > (via the mirror sites and in various formats). If a HOWTO is in a > Beta directory in sgml format I think that relatively few people will > actually use it. I will subscribe to the list and will still receive submissions. I think the best thing to do at this point is agree on a submission format and keyword (perhaps in the subject). They will be processed autmoatically if all the criteria is met. *I* would like to know if 1 or 2 format(s) can be agreed upon. I think this would help the process tremendously. > Thus I think that QC must be fast and take only about a day or two. > Step 1 of QC should be to automatically run sgml2txt, etc. on it to > see if there are errors. The sender should be automatically notified. > Lars had this in operation and I used it. One thing wrong was that > the sgml2info reported a few "errors" that were not really errors. > But right now we don't use sgml2info so there's no problem now. I've got pretty much the same set up in place now. > Once a HOWTO (or update) has been released, QC should not end. More > checking is likely needed. Much of the feedback will come from > readers of the HOWTO. While we could try to have people review > HOWTOs, assign them grades for accuracy, clearness, completeness, > etc. I think that such time could be more profitably used for > improving the HOWTOs rather than critically reviewing them. Would it be worthwhile to have a new email address set up for feedback regarding HOWTOs, mini's, FAQ's, etc. For the QC mentioned above? And even asking each author to add a link to that email at the end or beginning of the doc (the location could be discussed)? I see this as a better alternative than one email address/link on the HOWTO-INDEX, etc. > One could maintain a file (archive) of reader comments for each HOWTO > but this could be abused. Someone with a poor HOWTO might get friends > to send in undeserved praise, while enemies of someone with a great > HOWTO could bombard it with unjustified criticism. Thus you really > need a moderator for such "review" pages and right now we're too > shorthanded to do it. I think you're giving others far too much credit, or maybe selling them far to short to believe this would actually take place. > I think we should keep the mini-HOWTOs but some could become full > HOWTOs. People are used to the current classification and it > shouldn't be changed without compelling reasons. Removing mini-HOWTOs just doesn't make sense to me. I've been thinking about this for quite some time, and even brought up the issue MANY months ago, and there was never really much said. To remove the mini-HOWTOs is doing a dis-service (sp?) to the Linux community in my opinion. There are other options than to remove them, and yes I understand that we're not talking of deleting them. Best Regards, Tim -- Linux HOWTO coordinator http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO tjbynum@metalab.unc.edu, linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu (HOWTO's) tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net (Home) tbynum@rineco.com (Work) http://wallybox.cei.net:5119/cgi-bin/pageme.cgi (Alpha Pager) D I P C The system that enables you to write distributed programs.......the easy way! http://wallybox.cei.net/dipc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id BAA18331 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 01:31:49 +1000 Received: (qmail 6974 invoked by uid 38); 5 Sep 1999 15:31:42 -0000 Resent-Date: 5 Sep 1999 15:31:42 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:14:03 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: Howto submission bounces In-Reply-To: <199909041804.AA11420@lafn.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/338 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org > I sent howto updates to: submit-howto@lists.linuxdoc.org and it bounced. > So I'm now trying the old address: linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu I conacted the list maintainer(s) a week ago and there has been no creation of the submit-howto list and evidently no knowledge of it. Best Regards, Tim -- Linux HOWTO coordinator http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO tjbynum@metalab.unc.edu, linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu (HOWTO's) tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net (Home) tbynum@rineco.com (Work) http://wallybox.cei.net:5119/cgi-bin/pageme.cgi (Alpha Pager) D I P C The system that enables you to write distributed programs.......the easy way! http://wallybox.cei.net/dipc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id EAA19470 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 04:28:57 +1000 Received: (qmail 31912 invoked by uid 38); 5 Sep 1999 18:28:50 -0000 Resent-Date: 5 Sep 1999 18:28:50 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@victis.oeil.qc.ca Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 20:09:45 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: HOWTOs: QC, contents, & minis Message-ID: <19990905200945.A479@victis.oeil.qc.ca> References: <199909041728.AA07264@lafn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i In-Reply-To: <199909041728.AA07264@lafn.org>; from David Lawyer on Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 10:28:59AM -0700 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/340 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 10:28:59AM -0700, David Lawyer wrote: > Directory. I would suggest that this limit be 24 hours for updates > and 4 days for new submissions. If QC doesn't happen within these > time limits the HOWTO should be automatically uploaded anyway. A new I think it will take longer for updates, about 2 days. The 1 day limit for updates seems impossible to keep. > One could maintain a file (archive) of reader comments for each HOWTO > but this could be abused. Someone with a poor HOWTO might get friends > to send in undeserved praise, while enemies of someone with a great > HOWTO could bombard it with unjustified criticism. Thus you really > need a moderator for such "review" pages and right now we're too > shorthanded to do it. Feedback to the authors is authors privacy, while authors should use it to update the howto by themselves, I think we have no right to force them. For example, the feedback may be inaccurate or off topic (I've been asked for more information about GSM modems... in the UUCP HOWTO !) > Now some comments re the content of HOWTOs. While step-by-step > instructions may be OK for installation (of hardware/software) they > are not very good for troubleshooting. To do effective You're right, however each HOWTO should have step-by-step instructions somewhere, it mustn't be just theory. > I think we should keep the mini-HOWTOs but some could become full > HOWTOs. People are used to the current classification and it > shouldn't be changed without compelling reasons. I'll submit a list of the mini HOWTOs which could become HOWTOs. --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Anywhere/Partout: guylhem-pager \@/ oeil.qc.ca --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN9Kx6d+QeWug/qfFAQFz3QP/YHsyxcnv0YhSTRby7G5Q4ze/UgBbYgre n5A6UdfbcY6nokDqPGBcx2xWDbYcH3gVvUMRn3LcBK/k63Kqh3PkV4XANFH5RVIj uq9Zr0HBMKCbtxELy+zcXMsiUvNWPNORSbUc/5zjVMLNWnowSoZF0OUlvMP5MCmh GCX+rSKelcM= =DVUN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id PAA23719 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 15:53:23 +1000 Received: (qmail 23022 invoked by uid 38); 6 Sep 1999 05:53:04 -0000 Resent-Date: 6 Sep 1999 05:53:04 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 00:35:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Tim To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: submitting docs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/343 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org Hi, I tried to contact the one who will be assisting with the QC of the HOWTOs last week, but have yet to get a response. I just wanted to introduce myself and to kind of get together on how we're going to handle the submission of docs, and getting them from ldp-submit@* to me. One suggestion was to use a subject or keyword(s) in the body to designate a doc as being passed through the QC with flying colors. (suggestions on what to use to show that it's passed are welcomed). I also asked about the type of submissions we'd like to accept. This being the format that the docs are submitted in (eg. uuencoded and or plain text). Is one or the other restricting things too much? I suppose it wouldn't matter how they're submitted to ldp-submit, but I'd like to think that asking for one format or the other would *not* be asking too much. As for how they reach me, I'd like to see it simply in plain text format, although I could live with uuencoded docs or anything else for that matter, but this would be nice. Any and all feedback on this would be very much welcomed at this time. ;) Best Regards, Tim -- Linux HOWTO coordinator http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO tjbynum@metalab.unc.edu, linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu (HOWTO's) tjbynum@wallybox.cei.net (Home) tbynum@rineco.com (Work) http://wallybox.cei.net:5119/cgi-bin/pageme.cgi (Alpha Pager) D I P C The system that enables you to write distributed programs.......the easy way! http://wallybox.cei.net/dipc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id LAA29397 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:17:18 +1000 Received: (qmail 6713 invoked by uid 38); 7 Sep 1999 01:16:37 -0000 Resent-Date: 7 Sep 1999 01:16:37 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: bf347@lafn.org Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 18:16:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199909070116.AA20189@lafn.org> From: bf347@lafn.org (David Lawyer) To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Subject: Re: HOWTOs: QC, contents, & minis Reply-To: bf347@lafn.org Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/346 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org David Lawyer wrote >> Once a HOWTO (or update) has been released, QC should not end. More >> checking is likely needed. Much of the feedback will come from >> readers of the HOWTO. While we could try to have people review >> HOWTOs, assign them grades for accuracy, clearness, completeness, >> etc. I think that such time could be more profitably used for >> improving the HOWTOs rather than critically reviewing them. Tim Bynum responds: >Would it be worthwhile to have a new email address set up for feedback >regarding HOWTOs, mini's, FAQ's, etc. For the QC mentioned above? And >even asking each author to add a link to that email at the end or >beginning of the doc (the location could be discussed)? I see this as a >better alternative than one email address/link on the HOWTO-INDEX, etc. Feedback needs to go directly to the author/maintainer. All howtos should have the email of the author/maintainer for this purpose. But one may state in the howto what type of questions one will/will not answer. However, feedback that points out typos, errors, better ways of doing something, lack of clarity, etc. should always be welcome. Someone once wrote me threatening to complain to the howto coordnatator if he did not hear from me within a week or so. There are some cases where Howto users get no response from the maintainer. I think that in the HOWTO-INDEX or the like it could be a noted that if you are pointing out a defficiency in a HOWTO and get no response, then you could complain to ... (the coordinator or someone else willing to take on this job). Then the maintainer would be contacted by that person with the comments from the howto-user attached. If the maintainer can't be contacted it looks like the howto isn't being maintained. In the HOWTO-INDEX it could also suggest putting the title of the HOWTO as the first word of the subject in correspondence re howtos. This would make it easy to sort. There could also be a list of maintainers that are temporarily not available (on vacation, a business trip, ill, etc.). Then if a howto-reader can't make contact with the maintainer he could check this list first. David Lawyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id LAA29468 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:29:33 +1000 Received: (qmail 20558 invoked by uid 38); 7 Sep 1999 01:29:26 -0000 Resent-Date: 7 Sep 1999 01:29:26 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: yan@mail.storm.ca Message-Id: <199909070129.VAA08283@mail.storm.ca> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Yves Bellefeuille" To: ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 21:27:37 -0400 Subject: Re: HOWTOs: QC, contents, & minis Reply-to: yan@storm.ca Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199909070116.AA20189@lafn.org> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/347 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org bf347@lafn.org (David Lawyer) wrote: > Someone once wrote me threatening to complain to the howto > coordnatator if he did not hear from me within a week or so. I do try to reply to all messages I get regarding my Mini How-To, even if only to say "Thanks for your comments", but I think it's really out of line to threaten to complain if you don't get a reply within a week. -- Yves Bellefeuille , Ottawa, Canada Francais / English / Esperanto Maintainer, Esperanto FAQ: http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq.html PGP key at the servers and at http://www.storm.ca/~yan/pgp.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id UAA12809 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 20:56:31 +1000 Received: (qmail 1096 invoked by uid 38); 9 Sep 1999 10:56:12 -0000 Resent-Date: 9 Sep 1999 10:56:12 -0000 Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ; X-Envelope-Sender: guylhem@terram.oeil.qc.ca Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 21:56:48 +0200 From: Guylhem Aznar To: LDP discuss Subject: Local LDPs Message-ID: <19990908215648.B446@victis.oeil.qc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=0IvGJv3f9h+YhkrH; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5i X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-From: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/349 X-Loop: ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org --0IvGJv3f9h+YhkrH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, The following local LDPs have registered : fr, es, it, de, sl, kr, id, jp, hr, sb, gk, pt, br, au We will provide them : - link on www.linuxdoc.org first page, with a little flag above (even if a language can be used by many countries, we will only add the most known flag ; however "local" is not restricted to language (for exemple au is australia), it can be a mirror with some value added like book available in this country...) - www.XX.linuxdoc.org domain - ldp-local-XX@lists.linuxdoc.org alias To set all this, please fill up the following : =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Local LDP : - site : - mailing list : - leader email : =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D For exemple : Local LDP : pt (portuguese) - site : http://www.poli.org - mailing list : I-don-t-know@poli.org - leader : Alfredo Palace --=20 Guylhem Aznar, Linux Documentation Project leader: http://www.linuxdoc.org Clef PGP/PGP key: http://oeil.qc.ca/~guylhem Chez moi/At home: guylhem \@/ oeil.qc.ca Anywhere/Partout: guylhem-pager \@/ oeil.qc.ca --0IvGJv3f9h+YhkrH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAgUBN9a/gN+QeWug/qfFAQGqPAQAoF0EeN23d/xx8APyCiPABCN+kAQ2mbX/ 2Y+phAw95Zb78J4gRAuNuMTXoFdjQk1KAsOKIHSVEemyXMMsNtfc5DSsGtf1g0Qa n30hqXzowbKPmd4Y3QyVIMMkzNcssJi0myiPZueJ3P0LOYJYJ/hnEzUrCuyZlAIl gA5RFLyYiyI= =UGv+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0IvGJv3f9h+YhkrH-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org From - Mon Sep 24 21:15:39 2001 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.debian.org [209.41.108.199]) by albert.animats.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id VAA13057 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:48:09 +1000 Received: (qmail 28535 invoked by uid 38); 9 Sep 1999