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-dis