RE: Blank template

[Gregory Leblanc <GLeblanc@cu-portland.edu>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Scott [mailto:kinetix@sympatico.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 4:47 PM
> To: Gregory Leblanc
> Cc: markk@cgipc.com; Ldp Discuss List (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Blank template
> 
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> > > From: Mark Komarinski [mailto:markk@cgipc.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 10:42 AM
> > > To: Gregory Leblanc
> > > Cc: 'Joe Cooper'; Ldp Discuss List (E-mail)
> > > Subject: Re: Blank template
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks Joe,  I was going to let this go another couple days
> > > and *then* say something (almost like a vacation!).
> > > 
> > > Here's my changes.  Mostly adding in revision information.
> > 
> > So, am I going a good direction with this?  Too many 
> comments?  Too few?
> > 	Greg
> 
> I'm assuming this is aimed at the extreme novice Docbook 
> author; if so, you're
> right to err on the side of overkill. 

ok, I'll stick with lots of comments.

> Umm, (no license holy wars, please), here's my suggested 
> revision for the
> Copyright section. Does the full text of the license need to 
> appear as an
> appendix in the document, as well? (The H-H includes the 
> statement 'If you
> choose to use the boilerplate copyright, simply copy it into 
> your source code
> under a section called "Copyright and Licenses" or similar.' 
> but I'm still not
> quite sure what that means.)

Uh, oops.  hehe, I'd meant to replace that with the boilerplate text that's
on the LDP site, I just didn't get there.  That IS how the template will be
done, because that's the "LDP license", despite how you or I feel.  My docs
get a different license, but I want the LDP docs to at least start out with
the same license.  They can change it if they so desire, and are well versed
enough to know what the implications of that are.
	Greg


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org