Hi
But that matters not. The original point was that the documents
currently being developed in the LDP project are highly
scrutenized(spelling?) for legal requirements. Thus my point that it
may be a good idea to utilize currently existing resources.
I am the review coordinator for LDP currently and I am pretty sure that
these documents are NOT scrutenised at all legally and hence it is a bad
idea to follow it. For document authoring and review processes I would
completely agree with you
From the LDP website:
To be accepted into The Linux Documentation Project the document has
to be licensed according to either GFDL, Creating Commons or TLDP
copyright, for more information please look at the licensing section
<
http://tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/html/doc-licensing.html> of the
Author Guide.
From section 6.2(licensing section
<
http://tldp.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/html/doc-licensing.html>) of LDP
Author Guide:
We recommend using the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)
<
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html>, one of the Creative Commons
Licenses <
http://www.creativecommons.org/license>, or the LDP license
(currently under review).
The authors guide only suggests these licenses and does not require
them. The licensing requirement is specified by the LDP manifesto
http://tldp.org/manifesto.html which states that you can create custom
licenses and also does not mandate modifiability of documents. The LDP
license was also edited in place previously.
All I know is they have representatives such as ESR reviewing the
legal aspects of the document structures being derived from the guide.
I am not sure why you believe ESR is involved with the authors guide at all
regards
Rahul