This is the mail archive of the docbook@lists.oasis-open.org mailing list for the DocBook project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [docbook] Re: Free Shared Glossart Database of Computing Terms


On Wednesday 19 January 2005 13:49, Martin Wheeler wrote:
> I think you're talking here about Binh Nguyen's compilation - The Linux
> Dictionary:
>
> ? ? ? http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Dictionary/
>
> which, essentially, combined in one document all the various attempts to
> date (including esr's revised version of the Jargon file), with no
> attempt at editing or re-editing.
>
> It was converted to DocBook recently.
>
> With ~25 000 entries, and at ~2 000 pp, this should be enough for anyone
> to play with. ?[Mind you -- it's Linux-specific.]
>
> Searchable versions exist.
>
> (I'm surprised no-one's mentioned it so far -- I've been sitting here
> waiting for it to crop up -- surely I can't be the only one on the list
> aware of its existence?)

Martin, you hit the nail on the head. I like it and no I did not know about 
it. I don't think many people do.

There is however a "but," these are the TLDP's extensions to the GNU General 
Public License [1] and in particular I quote, 
"Note: All Linux Documentation Project manuals are copyrighted by their 
respective authors. THEY ARE NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN."

The problem here is I can hardly see people using the source for glossary 
collection in open or closed source projects under these conditions. For 
example, if I glossterm 
'AADN - American Association of DOMAIN Names (org., USA, Internet) From VERA 
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Dictionary/html/index.html'

I would have to adhere to the following condition of the license extended LDP 
license:
"Small portions may be reproduced as illustrations for reviews or quotes in 
other works without this permission notice if proper citation is given."

This said, the legal notice [2] of the document is not as prohibitive as it 
only mentioned the GFDL.

For my liking it would be better to have released under Creative Commons 
(CC-BY-SA 2.0) or used a dual license mechanism without any specific 
extensions to either.

Perhaps, others have some ideas, or perhaps I don't understand the 
relationship between [1] & [2], seems contradictory to me. When I thought of 
this my intention was to have a glossary.xml created by the people, used by 
the people under these two licenses.

Thoughts anyone? Anyone from TLDP here can clarify the situation?

[1] http://www.tldp.org/LDP-COPYRIGHT.html
[2] http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Dictionary/html/ln35.html
-- 
Sean Wheller
Technical Author
sean@inwords.co.za
084-854-9408
http://www.inwords.co.za
Registered Linux User #375355


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]