[<<] [<] Page 1 of 1 [>] [>>] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: [discuss] Limits on doc licensing's significance / authors identification
From: jdd ####@####.#### Date: 5 Oct 2008 08:26:35 +0100 Message-Id: <48E86BFB.9010005@dodin.org> Rick Moen a écrit : > Oh, I agree. I'm just trying to help LDP clarify its policy about > insisting that wiki-mediated submissions have explicit, documented > licences that are actually _granted_ by their authors (as opposed to > just being indicated on a generic wiki page elsewhere such that LDP > has little ability to show assent) yes. the default page if a default fall over. It's probably more appropriated to the "management" pages than the HOWTOs themselve I insist on using the HOWTOTemplate because the licence is in. and take measures to ensure that we > also collect and maintain meaningful contact information for HOWTO > maintainers. So far, we're not doing that. I insist in the wiki author HOWTO and the HOWTOTemplate on this respect, but how can we enforce it? identification is not the internet better part (who am I? who are you?) ideas? thanks jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://valerie.dodin.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-eic8MSSfM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[<<] [<] Page 1 of 1 [>] [>>] |