[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]