LFS in the Linux Documentation Project

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at cis.sac.accd.edu
Wed Jan 5 10:55:09 PST 2005

Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>> TLDP still has version 5.0 listed as current.
>>> I thought this was a known issue and boiled down to license and 
>>> formatting requirements they were forcing on us.  Anyone care to hit 
>>> me with a reminderbat (the cluebat's worn out already!)?
>> They do have those issues for BLFS and that was one impetus for the 
>> recent change to the BLFS license, but I hadn't heard of an LFS issue.
> OK, I simply assumed (ouch!) that as BLFS was affected, LFS would be 
> too.  Would you mind expanding on those issues so we can assess whether 
> LFS will be affected?

Larry started the process of getting BLFS into TLDP.  I followed up and 
they didn't like the license.  BLFS also had the problem of a non-person as 
the author -- a problem that LFS definately does not have.  (The BLFS 
Development Team is not acceptable. I am going to try to create an "LFS 
Educational Foundation" or similar as a non-profit corporation that can 
legally hold copyrights.  I have been coordinating with Gerard.)

Since BLFS was new to TLDP, they wanted to do a QA check too, but I haven't 
  followed up yet becasue of the other issues.

I would think a simple notice from you or Gerard to TLDP about the new 
release should be enough, but you need to get the offical word from them

   -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list