| 1 |
Philip Webb wrote: |
| 2 |
> 080716 Josh Saddler wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Philip Webb wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I'm not sure whether anyone among Gentoo officials cares about this, |
| 5 |
>>> but IBM has an article |
| 6 |
>>> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-awk1.html |
| 7 |
>>> whose byline is very misleading & may infringe on Gentoo's IP. |
| 8 |
>>> I have submitted a comment to IBM via their form. |
| 9 |
>> Uh, this article really *was* written by drobbins some time ago. |
| 10 |
>> It's okay. It's all perfectly legal; in fact, check out |
| 11 |
>> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/articles/ |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Yes, it looks as if someone at IBM simply copied it from there, |
| 14 |
> where it is indeed marked "updated". |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Perhaps you misunderstand -- the articles originally were written *for |
| 17 |
developerWorks*, not for Gentoo. That's where they first appeared 7 or 8 |
| 18 |
years ago. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> There remains an error in the IBM page above & the Gentoo doc version, |
| 21 |
> ie the URL given for 'Gentoo Technologies Inc' is 'www.gentoo.org'. |
| 22 |
> Whether the author still maintains GTI in New Mexico isn't clear |
| 23 |
> (there's another 'GTI' in Blacksburg VA , which makes databases etc), |
| 24 |
> but even if so, its Internet site is not the same as Gentoo Foundation's: |
| 25 |
> this needs to be corrected by the maintainer of Gentoo docs & by IBM. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> One would also assume that the author has a more direct e-address |
| 28 |
> than the forwarding address at Gentoo still given in the article |
| 29 |
> & the personal details seem to be 8 years old (eg "new baby"): |
| 30 |
> those also would better be updated or deleted. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> In contrast with traditional printed media -- press or advertising -- |
| 33 |
> the Internet is often less precise & therefore can be seriously misleading: |
| 34 |
> there is a lot of out-of-date information lying around |
| 35 |
> & no-one to take responsibility for it. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Nothing about the article really needs to be updated, either on the |
| 38 |
Gentoo side or the IBM side. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
If you look through the CVS log, about the only changes we made were a |
| 41 |
few typo fixes or adding GuideXML code to stuff that wasn't so well |
| 42 |
highlighted in the original. That's it. Nothing more needs to be done -- |
| 43 |
these articles are snapshots of how things used to be. We don't need to |
| 44 |
wipe out everything that's old, do we? Why not leave the information |
| 45 |
there so people can get some history? What if people don't want more |
| 46 |
recent information shared, and don't want a new email for all to see? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Seriously, nothing needs to be done on the IBM side, nor on ours. It's |
| 49 |
not an issue. There's no infringement anywhere, so please just let it go. |
Archives