discuss: Thread: hijacking someone else's howto

the hebrew howto was last updated 8 years ago.

its content is completely out of date and useless.  in fact, someone
reading the howto will be hindered in their efforts to use hebrew on
linux.

i have contacted its author and all the people listed in the credits.
nearly all addresses bounced.  the ones that didn't yielded no reply.

this howto is cruft.  it serves no purpose to either tldp or linux users
other than wasting disk space and showing us what things were like back
in 1995.

i've been thinking of updating the howto.  before i take on such a large
undertaking, i want to know what will happen to my submission to
tldp.org.  obviously, i'm not going to do anything if there's a chance
my work will not be accepted.

can someone make an official ruling on this?

thanks,
pete

-- 
GPG Instructions: http://www.dirac.org/linux/gpg
GPG Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D

The current Hebrew HOWTO needs to be archived and removed from the general
collection or noted with a big ARCHIVED notation. We had the discussion
last year about how to handle these types of documents once they are so far
out of date. Greg will know the correct procedure for "pulling" it from the
general collection or noting it as out of date. Greg, when you get back
will you give us a refresher?

I would say don't worry about "updating" start over clean, so that you own
the work.

Thanks for the heads up on the document.

joy

************************
Joy Y. Goodreau
LTC Information Development, Team Lead
Collections Editor for The Linux Documentation Project (www.tldp.org)
Office: (512) 838-4118;  T/L:  678-4118
####@####.####



                                                                                                                                     
                      Peter Jay Salzman                                                                                              
                      ####@####.####            To:       tldp discuss ####@####.####                                          
                                               cc:       Ken Bloom ####@####.####                                             
                      06/25/2003 10:14         Subject:  hijacking someone else's howto                                              
                      AM                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                     




the hebrew howto was last updated 8 years ago.

its content is completely out of date and useless.  in fact, someone
reading the howto will be hindered in their efforts to use hebrew on
linux.

i have contacted its author and all the people listed in the credits.
nearly all addresses bounced.  the ones that didn't yielded no reply.

this howto is cruft.  it serves no purpose to either tldp or linux users
other than wasting disk space and showing us what things were like back
in 1995.

i've been thinking of updating the howto.  before i take on such a large
undertaking, i want to know what will happen to my submission to
tldp.org.  obviously, i'm not going to do anything if there's a chance
my work will not be accepted.

can someone make an official ruling on this?

thanks,
pete

--
GPG Instructions: http://www.dirac.org/linux/gpg
GPG Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D

______________________
http://lists.tldp.org/

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 08:14:16AM -0700, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> the hebrew howto was last updated 8 years ago.
> 
> its content is completely out of date and useless.  in fact, someone
> reading the howto will be hindered in their efforts to use hebrew on
> linux.
> 
> i have contacted its author and all the people listed in the credits.
> nearly all addresses bounced.  the ones that didn't yielded no reply.
> 
> this howto is cruft.  it serves no purpose to either tldp or linux users
> other than wasting disk space and showing us what things were like back
> in 1995.
> 
> i've been thinking of updating the howto.  before i take on such a large
> undertaking, i want to know what will happen to my submission to
> tldp.org.  obviously, i'm not going to do anything if there's a chance
> my work will not be accepted.

If the licenses permits modification, then there's no problem.
Otherwise you would need to write another HOWTO on the same topic from
scratch.  You can't copy parts of the old one nor paraphrase sentences
from the old one.  Facts are not copyrightable but the method and
organization of expressing facts is.  So your new HOWTO should be
based in part on new "facts" and completely rewritten and reorganized.

You could read over material on the subject, including the old HOWTO and
then write a HOWTO on this topic based on your notes and memory without
looking at the old HOWTO.  The name could be say Hebrew-2-HOWTO to
distinguish it from the original.

			David Lawyer

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 10:31:22AM -0700, David Lawyer wrote:
> If the licenses permits modification, then there's no problem.
> Otherwise you would need to write another HOWTO on the same topic from
> scratch.  You can't copy parts of the old one nor paraphrase sentences
> from the old one.  Facts are not copyrightable but the method and
> organization of expressing facts is.  So your new HOWTO should be
> based in part on new "facts" and completely rewritten and reorganized.
> 
> You could read over material on the subject, including the old HOWTO and
> then write a HOWTO on this topic based on your notes and memory without
> looking at the old HOWTO.  The name could be say Hebrew-2-HOWTO to
> distinguish it from the original.

The Hebrew-HOWTO has no licence as far as I can see, which I assume
means that it falls under a default LDP licence allowing modification
(since the author allowed it to be published by the LDP and didn't state
any wishes of his own).

At least, I think that's what we agreed last time this was discussed.

-- 
Colin Watson                                  ####@####.####

On Wed 25 Jun 03,  6:37 PM, Colin Watson ####@####.#### said:
> 
> The Hebrew-HOWTO has no licence as far as I can see, which I assume
> means that it falls under a default LDP licence allowing modification
> (since the author allowed it to be published by the LDP and didn't state
> any wishes of his own).

for my own knowledge, what's the default license?

also, does ldp have a mechanism in place for documenting procedures and
standards?   seems like a good thing to have, especially considering the
rate at which the number of HOWTO's are growing.

pete

-- 
GPG Instructions: http://www.dirac.org/linux/gpg
GPG Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 10:57:47AM -0700, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> On Wed 25 Jun 03,  6:37 PM, Colin Watson ####@####.#### said:
> > 
> > The Hebrew-HOWTO has no licence as far as I can see, which I assume
> > means that it falls under a default LDP licence allowing modification
> > (since the author allowed it to be published by the LDP and didn't state
> > any wishes of his own).
> 
> for my own knowledge, what's the default license?

There currently is none.  If one submits a doc today, it must contain a
license.  In the past, there was a default LDP license.  But it's not
clear how valid it was, since people who submitted docs without a
license may never have read it.  However, since such submitters knew
that LDP would widely and freely distribute their document, there is at
least an implicit license to make copies of it.

> also, does ldp have a mechanism in place for documenting procedures and
> standards?

Not that I know of.
> seems like a good thing to have, especially considering the
> rate at which the number of HOWTO's are growing.

I don't agree.  I don't think we should burden authors with this.
			David Lawyer

On Wed 25 Jun 03, 11:39 AM, David Lawyer ####@####.#### said:
> 
> > also, does ldp have a mechanism in place for documenting procedures and
> > standards?
> 
> Not that I know of.
> > seems like a good thing to have, especially considering the
> > rate at which the number of HOWTO's are growing.
> 
> I don't agree.  I don't think we should burden authors with this.

not for the authors -- for the infrastructure.

in other words, a place that says what the procedures are when a howto
becomes orphaned or hopelessly out of date.  or what are acceptable
licenses and how to handle HOWTO's which don't currently have a license.
similar to how debian guidelines don't put restrictions on upstream
authors (other than the license they need to use if their software is to
be distributed by debian).

anyway, it just a thought.  tldp is obviously hale and hearty without
such a document.

pete

-- 
GPG Instructions: http://www.dirac.org/linux/gpg
GPG Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 11:39:18AM -0700, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> On Wed 25 Jun 03, 11:39 AM, David Lawyer ####@####.#### said:
> > 
> > > also, does ldp have a mechanism in place for documenting procedures and
> > > standards?
> > 
> > Not that I know of.
> > > seems like a good thing to have, especially considering the
> > > rate at which the number of HOWTO's are growing.
> > 
> > I don't agree.  I don't think we should burden authors with this.
> 
> not for the authors -- for the infrastructure.
> 
> in other words, a place that says what the procedures are when a howto
> becomes orphaned or hopelessly out of date.

It's not something to be governed by rules since every case is
a different.  We archive howtos that aren't being maintained but the
main problem is that we need more volunteer to find such howtos.

> or what are acceptable
> licenses and how to handle HOWTO's which don't currently have a license.
Regarding the licenses we accept it's simply stated in the Manifesto.

They must permit free distribution but may restrict modification (but we
don't encourage this).

> similar to how debian guidelines don't put restrictions on upstream
> authors (other than the license they need to use if their software is to
> be distributed by debian).
> 
> anyway, it just a thought.  tldp is obviously hale and hearty without
> such a document.
> 
> pete
> 
> -- 
> GPG Instructions: http://www.dirac.org/linux/gpg
> GPG Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D
> 
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/
> 
> 
			David Lawyer