LFS in the Linux Documentation Project
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
More information about the lfs-dev