[<<] [<] Page 1 of 1 [>] [>>] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
HOWTO in the wiki
From: "jdd for http://tldp.org" ####@####.#### Date: 14 Nov 2008 16:34:01 +0000 Message-Id: <491DA7ED.9020706@dodin.org> I began to port the HOWTOs to the wiki. See http://wiki.tldp.org/Page_Status (beginning of the page) For HOWTOs without licence, this is easy, because I only put it in text mode "raw" with only read access, documentation page activated and an admonition. May be this could be used to generate standard docbook. The admonition link to the discussion page is absolute, so should redirect users to the wiki. Given these HOWTOs *are* in the tldp collection, I think we can assume we can publish then verbatim :-) (I know, even this can be challenged, but I think we can live with this one). The question to knownif we have to move tese ones to the "obsolete" file or category is an other thing, it needs some technical knowledge of the subject. What do you think of this ? jdd -- jdd for the Linux Documentation Project http://wiki.tldp.org http://www.dodin.net | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
Re: [discuss] HOWTO in the wiki
From: Rick Moen ####@####.#### Date: 14 Nov 2008 19:47:34 +0000 Message-Id: <20081114194634.GO30874@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Jean-Daniel Dodin ####@####.#### > Given these HOWTOs *are* in the tldp collection, I think we can > assume we can publish then verbatim :-) (I know, even this can be > challenged, but I think we can live with this one). That falls into the category of "implied licence". If you think about it, you'll realise why it's a settled point of law that, when you provide a copyrighted work to a medium that customarily distributes it in a particular way, you are implying permission to distribute _your_ work in that way. For example, an author who posts a particularly creative essay to Usenet or a mailing list gives implicit permission to distribute that essay to Usenet news spools / newsreader software around the world or to mailing list subscribers (respectively), and cannot prevail if he/she subsequently decides those people were not entitled to have copies. So, because HOWTO contributors knew that LDP puts up contributed HOWTOs in various places on its Web sites and mirrors, those contributors could not prevail in court over "publishing them verbatim" being supposed copyright violation. That, therefore, is one thing LDP does that absolutely is _not_ even technical copyright violation for any HOWTO, regardless of licensing. Continuing my point from yesterday, it's an interesting exercise to watch what people are doing around you during a typical day, and spot all the arguable torts that occur. It turns out, it's just about impossible to live a normal life without committing a minor series of civil wrongs (torts) against people: Every time someone has (arguably) been denied a legal right or (arguably) failed a legal obligation, that could be a lawsuit. Any time a retail customer thinks a product isn't as good as the seller claimed, for example, that's an arguable tort. Yet, most such matters get simply dealt with. People and companies work things out: broken contracts, failure to comply with deadlines, etc. And of course the main lesson is that many torts aren't worth worrying about, and some are a lot more serious than others. That certainly includes copyright violations. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[<<] [<] Page 1 of 1 [>] [>>] |