discuss: Thread: old linuxdoc.org links

Hello, as said in the other thread about ads, we have many HOWTOs,
mostly historical ones, with links to linuxdoc.org or similar sending
to a commercial Web site.

I recently had to cope with the problem of Moin wiki refusing to save
with a imaginary URL (given in the doc as example purpose), even as
raw ({{{}}})

To be able to save, I simply add a space (or  ) in the URL

May be we can find an other special character allowed by the wiki (and
may be by docbook) but giving an incorrect URL.

If this is not or essentially not visible in the html rendering, I
think we can cope with this even if the licence don't allow
modification. (if we can modify, there is no problem)

I know there is always discussion, but I think such modif is
acceptable for us. If any author complain, we will only remove the doc.


ideas?

jdd
-- 
jdd for the Linux Documentation Project
http://wiki.tldp.org
http://www.dodin.net

Quoting Jean-Daniel Dodin ####@####.####

> Hello, as said in the other thread about ads, we have many HOWTOs,
> mostly historical ones, with links to linuxdoc.org or similar sending
> to a commercial Web site.

This really should be fixed.

> May be we can find an other special character allowed by the wiki (and
> may be by docbook) but giving an incorrect URL.
> 
> If this is not or essentially not visible in the html rendering, I
> think we can cope with this even if the licence don't allow
> modification. (if we can modify, there is no problem)

Um, no.   Plainly, that _is_ still modification, and thus technical
copyright violation if no copyright owner licence grants the right of
modification.

Surely that is pretty obvious?

(As noted, there are particular types of trivial modification that in my
considered view LDP _should_ carry out even in absence of licence grants, as
essentially harmless and in everyone's best interest.  However, this
business of saying "it's not really modification and not a licence
violation" should cease, as that is obviously just not true.)

Rick Moen a écrit :

> essentially harmless and in everyone's best interest.  However, this
> business of saying "it's not really modification and not a licence
> violation" should cease, as that is obviously just not true.)

I didn't say so. I only said we can cope with, that is defend it in
front of the public - probably also in front of a judge, don't forget
law violation's consequence is appreciated by the judge, one can be
guilty but condemned to nothing.

but it *is* licence violation.

The only other solution we have is to remove the doc from the LDP
collection. Have we do do this?

jdd


-- 
jdd for the Linux Documentation Project
http://wiki.tldp.org
http://www.dodin.net