discuss: Thread: Re: review of unpublished source documents

Hello,

I mentioned (a few weeks ago) that we have several unpublished 
source documents.  I went through the list and here's the 
disposition of each.


Bash-Scripting-Introduction-HOWTO
---------------------------------
I suggest publishing (contingent on authors).  (GFDL-1.1)

  (howto/docbook/Bash-Scripting-Introduction-HOWTO)

This Bash-Scripting-Introduction-HOWTO looks great!  I've sent an 
email to Francis Litterio and Rohit Patil asking if they are OK with 
our publishing it.  (Yes, it has a few sections that say "Under 
construction", but that's not unusual in our collection.)



Intro-Linux
-----------
I suggest publishing (contingent on author and license question).  

  (guide/docbook/Intro-Linux)

This was written by Machtelt Garrels (Tille), a formerly active TLDP 
volunteer and contributor.  The license says:

  https://github.com/tLDP/LDP/blob/master/LDP/guide/docbook/Intro-Linux/abook.xml#L362
  http://tille.garrels.be/training/tldp/pr01s07.html

This is not one of the known-acceptable licenses in the license 
list.  Is that license acceptable to LDP?  If the license is 
acceptable to TLDP, I'll email Tille (I remember having very 
positive and productive interactions with her when she was 
volunteering for TLDP).

By the way, this is very high quality content.



linux-ip
--------
Request help:  this linux-ip guide is mine.  (GFDL-1.2)

  (guide/docbook/linux-ip)

I think it's great.  I might be biased.  Maybe somebody else should 
give the approval to publish as an LDP document, though.  Any 
volunteers to squawk some approbation on this?


Linux-Networking
----------------
I suggest publishing (GFDL-1.2)

  (guide/docbook/Linux-Networking)

The Linux-Networking guide was written by a formerly-active member 
of TLDP, Binh Nguyen.  I recall his presence on the list around the 
time he must have authored this document.  There are a few sections 
of this document, where he has clearly left unformatted content (and 
it gets rendered poorly), but there's a wealth of good information 
in here.


Tuning-Linux
------------
I suggest publishing (contingent on author).

  (guide/docbook/Tuning-Linux)

The author is Mark Komarinski (TLDP volunteer who is currently 
active on this list).  It looks like there is quite a bit of good 
general content in there.  Would you like to publish this?

How would you feel about picking a specific license for this 
document instead of using plain language "Permission to distribute 
in electronic form for any purpose is granted. [...]"



rpmupgrade
----------
I suggest NOT publishing:  unfinished. (GFDL-1.1)

  (howto/docbook/rpmupgrade)

I reviewed the rpmupgrade.  It looks like the document was never 
quite completed.  I am simply going to move it into the unmaintained 
directory for now.



GNU-Build-System-HOWTO
----------------------
We will not publish:  unfinished.  (GPL-2.0)

  (howto/docbook/GNU-Build-System-HOWTO)

This was written by a former active TLDP member, Y Giridhar Appaji 
Nag and co-author Mark Hoebeke.  I've communicated with Giridhar, 
who agrees that the document can be retired.  I have placed this in 
the retired directory of the version control system.



Consultants-Guide
-----------------
Retired.

  (guide/docbook/Consultants-Guide)

As we discussed earlier, I have retired the Consultants-Guide (in 
the LDP/LDP/retired directory now).



And, if you made it this far, here's a joke for you:

  Q:  Who is Snow White's brother?
  A:  Egg white!  Get the yolk?

Best,

-Martin

-- 
Martin A. Brown
http://linux-ip.net/

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Martin A. Brown ####@####.#### wrote:
> 
> 
> Tuning-Linux
> ------------
> I suggest publishing (contingent on author).
> 
>  (guide/docbook/Tuning-Linux)
> 
> The author is Mark Komarinski (TLDP volunteer who is currently 
> active on this list).  It looks like there is quite a bit of good 
> general content in there.  Would you like to publish this?
> 
> How would you feel about picking a specific license for this 
> document instead of using plain language "Permission to distribute 
> in electronic form for any purpose is granted. […]"
> 

Well that brings back memories.  A quick look at the text shows most of the content is pretty dated (from 2001) and there have been a lot of changes to technology since.  I’m not sure if it’s worth publishing in this state but I have no problem changing the copyright to GFDL or publishing if you feel it’s worth putting up.  If anyone else wants to take a crack at updating this I’m open to someone else taking it on.

>  Q:  Who is Snow White's brother?
>  A:  Egg white!  Get the yolk?

*groan*

-Mark

Linux-Networking guide/doc needs a cleanup and (in my opinion) lot
more work needs to be done to be ready for general publication. I got
caught up with life and basically forgot about it. Going through it
and I'm not really sure I have the time (or heart) to finish it off
properly. Large chunks of it needs to be updated and if I recall
correctly there were slabs of information that I wanted to be added...
Am not against adding bits and pieces to it though...

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Martin A. Brown ####@####.#### wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I mentioned (a few weeks ago) that we have several unpublished
> source documents.  I went through the list and here's the
> disposition of each.
>
>
> Bash-Scripting-Introduction-HOWTO
> ---------------------------------
> I suggest publishing (contingent on authors).  (GFDL-1.1)
>
>   (howto/docbook/Bash-Scripting-Introduction-HOWTO)
>
> This Bash-Scripting-Introduction-HOWTO looks great!  I've sent an
> email to Francis Litterio and Rohit Patil asking if they are OK with
> our publishing it.  (Yes, it has a few sections that say "Under
> construction", but that's not unusual in our collection.)
>
>
>
> Intro-Linux
> -----------
> I suggest publishing (contingent on author and license question).
>
>   (guide/docbook/Intro-Linux)
>
> This was written by Machtelt Garrels (Tille), a formerly active TLDP
> volunteer and contributor.  The license says:
>
>   https://github.com/tLDP/LDP/blob/master/LDP/guide/docbook/Intro-Linux/abook.xml#L362
>   http://tille.garrels.be/training/tldp/pr01s07.html
>
> This is not one of the known-acceptable licenses in the license
> list.  Is that license acceptable to LDP?  If the license is
> acceptable to TLDP, I'll email Tille (I remember having very
> positive and productive interactions with her when she was
> volunteering for TLDP).
>
> By the way, this is very high quality content.
>
>
>
> linux-ip
> --------
> Request help:  this linux-ip guide is mine.  (GFDL-1.2)
>
>   (guide/docbook/linux-ip)
>
> I think it's great.  I might be biased.  Maybe somebody else should
> give the approval to publish as an LDP document, though.  Any
> volunteers to squawk some approbation on this?
>
>
> Linux-Networking
> ----------------
> I suggest publishing (GFDL-1.2)
>
>   (guide/docbook/Linux-Networking)
>
> The Linux-Networking guide was written by a formerly-active member
> of TLDP, Binh Nguyen.  I recall his presence on the list around the
> time he must have authored this document.  There are a few sections
> of this document, where he has clearly left unformatted content (and
> it gets rendered poorly), but there's a wealth of good information
> in here.
>
>
> Tuning-Linux
> ------------
> I suggest publishing (contingent on author).
>
>   (guide/docbook/Tuning-Linux)
>
> The author is Mark Komarinski (TLDP volunteer who is currently
> active on this list).  It looks like there is quite a bit of good
> general content in there.  Would you like to publish this?
>
> How would you feel about picking a specific license for this
> document instead of using plain language "Permission to distribute
> in electronic form for any purpose is granted. [...]"
>
>
>
> rpmupgrade
> ----------
> I suggest NOT publishing:  unfinished. (GFDL-1.1)
>
>   (howto/docbook/rpmupgrade)
>
> I reviewed the rpmupgrade.  It looks like the document was never
> quite completed.  I am simply going to move it into the unmaintained
> directory for now.
>
>
>
> GNU-Build-System-HOWTO
> ----------------------
> We will not publish:  unfinished.  (GPL-2.0)
>
>   (howto/docbook/GNU-Build-System-HOWTO)
>
> This was written by a former active TLDP member, Y Giridhar Appaji
> Nag and co-author Mark Hoebeke.  I've communicated with Giridhar,
> who agrees that the document can be retired.  I have placed this in
> the retired directory of the version control system.
>
>
>
> Consultants-Guide
> -----------------
> Retired.
>
>   (guide/docbook/Consultants-Guide)
>
> As we discussed earlier, I have retired the Consultants-Guide (in
> the LDP/LDP/retired directory now).
>
>
>
> And, if you made it this far, here's a joke for you:
>
>   Q:  Who is Snow White's brother?
>   A:  Egg white!  Get the yolk?
>
> Best,
>
> -Martin
>
> --
> Martin A. Brown
> http://linux-ip.net/
>
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/
>

Quoting Martin A. Brown ####@####.####

> Intro-Linux
> -----------
> I suggest publishing (contingent on author and license question).  
> 
>   (guide/docbook/Intro-Linux)
> 
> This was written by Machtelt Garrels (Tille), a formerly active TLDP 
> volunteer and contributor.  The license says:
> 
>   https://github.com/tLDP/LDP/blob/master/LDP/guide/docbook/Intro-Linux/abook.xml#L362
>   http://tille.garrels.be/training/tldp/pr01s07.html
> 
> This is not one of the known-acceptable licenses in the license 
> list.  Is that license acceptable to LDP?

The licence text at http://tille.garrels.be/training/tldp/pr01s07.html
is the 3-clause BSD License, except that he's fooled around slightly
with the wording of clause #3 to change 'copyright holder' to 'author, ,
Machtelt Garrels'.  That appears to be the only difference.  Compare:
https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

I wish people wouldn't do this sort of tinkering, as it can produce
slightly weird, unintended legal effects.  In this case, the unintended
effect is to permanently tie the work to Machtelt, making any
replacement maintainer not the 'author', just a 'contributor', and
making the licence text itself gratuitously specific to Machtelt.

Is this a problem?  Not really.  It's just a minor wobble.  The
important thing is that the licence conveys all necessary rights and is
a 'forkable' licence.

But please, folks.  Please resist the urge to tinker with a standard
licence text.  (Maybe if we ask Machtelt politely, he'll consent to
changing to fully standard 3-clause BSD terms.  He need not issue a 
new instance of the work.  It's enough that he say 'Yes, you may change
that for me.')


I'm one of the volunteer evaluators of licences submitted to Open Source
Initiative (on the license-review and license-discuss mailing lists),
and can say that OSI has for the past decade-plus received an ongoing
barrage of _permissive_ licences with minor differences (of the
'tinkering' variety), chewing up the time of licence evaluators on
usually pointless and somewhat silly variations -- sometimes making the
licences totally (yet unintentionally) dysfunctional.  Oddly enough, I
would have expected this problem to involve silly, sometimes broken
_copyleft_ ('reciprocal') licences, but no: It's pretty much always
silly, sometimes broken permissive licences, instead.


But at least the above is clearly open source (spitting cousin of
3-clause BSD with, in effect, a minor branding difference), rather than
something _really_ weird and screwball, like:

o  'WTFPL v. 2':  Permissive licence so badly written that it grants
    rights only to the _licence_ itself, and not to any ostensibly
    covered work.

o  'Unlicence':  Paragraph (and sentence) #1 professes to put the
    covered work into the public domain.  Paragraph 2 professes to be 
    a grant of rights normally reserved by default to a copyright owner, 
    which makes no sense given that the preceding sentence professed to 
    eradicate the work's quality of being ownable.  _However_ (upon 
    reflection), in itself that would be harmless if redundant and 
    pointless:  One can interpret paragraph 2 as an elaboration of 
    the consequences of the first paragraph.

    Paragraph 3 is mostly further explanation of the concept of public
    domain, and therefore harmless if not useful.  Its middle sentence
    elaborates that the erstwhile author aims to bind heirs and
    successors, too (which is a logical inclusion, irrespective of 
    whether it works).

    Paragraph 4, though, is the one that would be amusing if it weren't
    tragically broken:  It's the warranty disclaimer.  People accepting
    the covered work are obliged to accept the condition of no warranty,
    otherwise there is no licence.  Except, oh, wait:  Paragraph 1
    professed to put the work in the public domain, so the erstwhile 
    owner has sawed off and evaporated in paragraph 1 all power to 
    require the condition in paragraph 4.

o   'Public domain':  The effect of declaring one's work public domain
    by personal fiat is legally non-deterministic, as it may have the
    intended effect in some jurisdictions but fail in others where 
    it is known to not work (such as the UK), resulting in a silent 
    failure to grant permission at all.  Or judge might rule it to have 
    some other effect.  The work's user has to roll the legal dice to 
    find out, which is exactly what you as a creator do _not_ want to 
    achieve with licensing.


Software people should as a general rule not attempt to do the work of
attorneys (and, if they're lucky, attorneys won't write their software). 
In both cass, unintentional comedy is the likely result, at best.

Hello and good evening,

>> Tuning-Linux
>> ------------
>> I suggest publishing (contingent on author).
>> 
>>  (guide/docbook/Tuning-Linux)
>> 
>> The author is Mark Komarinski (TLDP volunteer who is currently 
>> active on this list).  It looks like there is quite a bit of good 
>> general content in there.  Would you like to publish this?
>> 
>> How would you feel about picking a specific license for this 
>> document instead of using plain language "Permission to distribute 
>> in electronic form for any purpose is granted. […]"
>
>Well that brings back memories.  A quick look at the text shows 
>most of the content is pretty dated (from 2001) and there have been 
>a lot of changes to technology since.  I’m not sure if it’s worth 
>publishing in this state but I have no problem changing the 
>copyright to GFDL or publishing if you feel it’s worth putting up.  

As the author, it is entirely up to you.  Either decision would be 
reasonable here.

  * publish it; there is stuff of good value there
  * retire it; too much has changed

If you wanted a vote from the peanut gallery, I'd say this one still 
retains some value, where some of our others appear a bit longer in 
the tooth.

Oh, and I saw and just accepted your patch.  Thank you.

>If anyone else wants to take a crack at updating this I’m open to 
>someone else taking it on.

OK.  Noted.  I'm not sure quite how to manage this sort of metadata 
(it has been one of our historic problems), but I will start 
collecting a list of documents that could be taken over, if desired.  

This can be one of that set.

>>  Q:  Who is Snow White's brother?
>>  A:  Egg white!  Get the yolk?
>
>*groan*

Hey, you read all the way to the end!  :)

-Martin

-- 
Martin A. Brown
http://linux-ip.net/

Could some one tell me how to unsubscribe from this list? 

Thanks

  Original Message  
From: Martin A. Brown
Sent: Thursday 25 February 2016 9:56 AM
To: Mark Komarinski
Cc: ####@####.####
Subject: Re: RFC: review of unpublished source documents


Hello and good evening,

>> Tuning-Linux
>> ------------
>> I suggest publishing (contingent on author).
>> 
>> (guide/docbook/Tuning-Linux)
>> 
>> The author is Mark Komarinski (TLDP volunteer who is currently 
>> active on this list). It looks like there is quite a bit of good 
>> general content in there. Would you like to publish this?
>> 
>> How would you feel about picking a specific license for this 
>> document instead of using plain language "Permission to distribute 
>> in electronic form for any purpose is granted. […]"
>
>Well that brings back memories. A quick look at the text shows 
>most of the content is pretty dated (from 2001) and there have been 
>a lot of changes to technology since. I’m not sure if it’s worth 
>publishing in this state but I have no problem changing the 
>copyright to GFDL or publishing if you feel it’s worth putting up. 

As the author, it is entirely up to you. Either decision would be 
reasonable here.

* publish it; there is stuff of good value there
* retire it; too much has changed

If you wanted a vote from the peanut gallery, I'd say this one still 
retains some value, where some of our others appear a bit longer in 
the tooth.

Oh, and I saw and just accepted your patch. Thank you.

>If anyone else wants to take a crack at updating this I’m open to 
>someone else taking it on.

OK. Noted. I'm not sure quite how to manage this sort of metadata 
(it has been one of our historic problems), but I will start 
collecting a list of documents that could be taken over, if desired. 

This can be one of that set.

>> Q: Who is Snow White's brother?
>> A: Egg white! Get the yolk?
>
>*groan*

Hey, you read all the way to the end! :)

-Martin

-- 
Martin A. Brown
http://linux-ip.net/

Hello and good evening Binh,

Thank you for responding so quickly to my post!

>> Linux-Networking
>> ----------------
>> I suggest publishing (GFDL-1.2)
>>
>>   (guide/docbook/Linux-Networking)
>>
>> The Linux-Networking guide was written by a formerly-active member
>> of TLDP, Binh Nguyen.  I recall his presence on the list around the
>> time he must have authored this document.  There are a few sections
>> of this document, where he has clearly left unformatted content (and
>> it gets rendered poorly), but there's a wealth of good information
>> in here.

>Linux-Networking guide/doc needs a cleanup and (in my opinion) lot 
>more work needs to be done to be ready for general publication.

OK, very good.  I read here, that you'd prefer to keep it in an 
'inprogress' state.  Well, we have a 'retired' directory, so I 
think, analogically speaking, we can have an 'inprogress' directory 
to separate this document from the currently published set.

If you don't mind, I'll move it into a new directory.

>I got caught up with life and basically forgot about it. Going 
>through it and I'm not really sure I have the time (or heart) to 
>finish it off properly.

I absolutely understand, especially with such an ambitious project.

I also read through parts of your document and find the completed 
parts quite good; in particular that you introduce so many different 
parts of the Linux and networking system(s).

>Large chunks of it needs to be updated and if I recall correctly 
>there were slabs of information that I wanted to be added...

Ah, yes!  That must be what I had seen.  It looks like you had 
included parts of RFCs (for example) to guide your writing.  That 
must be slabs of information you are talking about.

>Am not against adding bits and pieces to it though...

I will wait for your reply before taking action, but I think it'd be 
worth moving this into an 'inprogress' directory.

Thank you for your reply,

-Martin

-- 
Martin A. Brown
http://linux-ip.net/

Hello and good evening Rick,

>> Intro-Linux
>> -----------
>> I suggest publishing (contingent on author and license question).  
>> 
>>   (guide/docbook/Intro-Linux)
>> 
>> This was written by Machtelt Garrels (Tille), a formerly active TLDP 
>> volunteer and contributor.  The license says:
>> 
>>   https://github.com/tLDP/LDP/blob/master/LDP/guide/docbook/Intro-Linux/abook.xml#L362
>>   http://tille.garrels.be/training/tldp/pr01s07.html
>> 
>> This is not one of the known-acceptable licenses in the license 
>> list.  Is that license acceptable to LDP?
>
>The licence text at 
>http://tille.garrels.be/training/tldp/pr01s07.html is the 3-clause 
>BSD License, except that he's fooled around slightly with the 
>wording of clause #3 to change 'copyright holder' to 'author, , 
>Machtelt Garrels'.  That appears to be the only difference.  
>Compare: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

OK.  Thank you very much!  I would not have been so quickly able to 
identify the important change and distinction there.

>I wish people wouldn't do this sort of tinkering, as it can produce 
>slightly weird, unintended legal effects.  In this case, the 
>unintended effect is to permanently tie the work to Machtelt, 
>making any replacement maintainer not the 'author', just a 
>'contributor', and making the licence text itself gratuitously 
>specific to Machtelt.
>
>Is this a problem?  Not really.  It's just a minor wobble.  The 
>important thing is that the licence conveys all necessary rights 
>and is a 'forkable' licence.

OK.  All very useful and helpful information.

Based on your feedback, I declare that the Intro-Linux is suitable 
for publication at TLDP.

But, secondarily, I will send a note Tille.  She volunteered for a 
long time with TLDP and I remember my interactions with her were 
good and practical and I found her sensible and supportive.  I would 
like to let her know we plan on publishing it and get her take on 
it.

>But please, folks.  Please resist the urge to tinker with a 
>standard licence text.  (Maybe if we ask Machtelt politely, he'll 
>consent to changing to fully standard 3-clause BSD terms.  He need 
>not issue a new instance of the work.  It's enough that he say 
>'Yes, you may change that for me.')

I'll see what she has to say about this.

>I'm one of the volunteer evaluators of licences submitted to Open 
>Source Initiative (on the license-review and license-discuss 
>mailing lists), and can say that OSI has for the past decade-plus 
>received an ongoing barrage of _permissive_ licences with minor 
>differences (of the 'tinkering' variety), chewing up the time of 
>licence evaluators on usually pointless and somewhat silly 
>variations -- sometimes making the licences totally (yet 
>unintentionally) dysfunctional.  Oddly enough, I would have 
>expected this problem to involve silly, sometimes broken _copyleft_ 
>('reciprocal') licences, but no: It's pretty much always silly, 
>sometimes broken permissive licences, instead.
>
>But at least the above is clearly open source (spitting cousin of
>3-clause BSD with, in effect, a minor branding difference), rather than
>something _really_ weird and screwball, like:
>
>o  'WTFPL v. 2':  Permissive licence so badly written that it grants
>    rights only to the _licence_ itself, and not to any ostensibly
>    covered work.
>
>o  'Unlicence':  Paragraph (and sentence) #1 professes to put the
>    covered work into the public domain.  Paragraph 2 professes to be 
>    a grant of rights normally reserved by default to a copyright owner, 
>    which makes no sense given that the preceding sentence professed to 
>    eradicate the work's quality of being ownable.  _However_ (upon 
>    reflection), in itself that would be harmless if redundant and 
>    pointless:  One can interpret paragraph 2 as an elaboration of 
>    the consequences of the first paragraph.
>
>    Paragraph 3 is mostly further explanation of the concept of public
>    domain, and therefore harmless if not useful.  Its middle sentence
>    elaborates that the erstwhile author aims to bind heirs and
>    successors, too (which is a logical inclusion, irrespective of 
>    whether it works).
>
>    Paragraph 4, though, is the one that would be amusing if it weren't
>    tragically broken:  It's the warranty disclaimer.  People accepting
>    the covered work are obliged to accept the condition of no warranty,
>    otherwise there is no licence.  Except, oh, wait:  Paragraph 1
>    professed to put the work in the public domain, so the erstwhile 
>    owner has sawed off and evaporated in paragraph 1 all power to 
>    require the condition in paragraph 4.
>
>o   'Public domain':  The effect of declaring one's work public domain
>    by personal fiat is legally non-deterministic, as it may have the
>    intended effect in some jurisdictions but fail in others where 
>    it is known to not work (such as the UK), resulting in a silent 
>    failure to grant permission at all.  Or judge might rule it to have 
>    some other effect.  The work's user has to roll the legal dice to 
>    find out, which is exactly what you as a creator do _not_ want to 
>    achieve with licensing.
>
>
>Software people should as a general rule not attempt to do the work 
>of attorneys (and, if they're lucky, attorneys won't write their 
>software). In both cass, unintentional comedy is the likely result, 
>at best.

Very good.  I've made mental note of the above, specifically your 
point about documents in the public domain (that seems just weird).

Thank you for weighing in on this discussion,


-Martin

-- 
Martin A. Brown
http://linux-ip.net/

Quoting Martin A. Brown ####@####.####

> Hello and good evening Rick,

Hi, Martin, and thank you for your comments.  And thank you for pointing
out the somewhat sexist error of mine in assuming Machtelt was male.
My, the assumptions that creep in while we're not watching, eh?  (And
I'm sure I'd caught myself making that error about 'Tille' in the past,
and then forgot.)

> Very good.  I've made mental note of the above, specifically your 
> point about documents in the public domain (that seems just weird).

It's indeed a weird and vexing problem.  The fundamental explanation 
is that some very powerful commercial interests have ensured that
copyright arises automatically (the Berne Convention treaty) and
persists because that is enormously profitable, and so there's a
built-in bias in the law, all around the world, to preserve that
abstract property.

Of course, material does go into public domain through expiration of
copyright (ignoring for a moment copyright term extensions passed every
time Disney is about to lose the first Mickey Mouse film), but there 
are complications that can arise from attempting to make that happen
sooner through an act of will.

If you wish to see further exploration of this topic, I've put what I've
found on the subject here:  'Public Domain' on
http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law/ .

Note on that page that you _can_ get the approximate effect desired from
a 'public domain dedication' using a one-line simple licence, like this:

Copyright (C) 2016 Owner Name.  Do whatever you want with this work.

However, a long succession of people think that's not good enough and 
think they can magick away the global copyright regime.  (Because 
litigation costs money and nobody sues without something valuable at
stake, there is scant caselaw about 'public domain dedications'.
Personally, I don't want me or my users to risk being a test case.)

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 11:26 PM, Martin A. Brown ####@####.#### wrote:
> 
> 
> If you wanted a vote from the peanut gallery, I'd say this one still 
> retains some value, where some of our others appear a bit longer in 
> the tooth.

Go ahead and publish then.  Many of the concepts are still valid, just the implementations need updating.