Jim Gifford wrote: > Bruce, > We are all part of LFS, the only reason I put in that notice was to > let people know not to copy your material. Essentially we were told by > BLFS that you would not support multilib and other architectures, we > took care of it with an open project. We have been going through and > been removing descriptions, you guys are welcome to come in and update > and remove the offending descriptions.
Jim, Randy's the lead now, but I can see some of your point, but not all. BLFS is a community effort too. I personally don't mind you taking whatever you think is appropriate and putting it into CBLFS. In fact, that is allowed by the license. I see the note: "Please don't add information from BLFS. BLFS is copyrighted." To me that is not necessary. What I'd like to see is a note that BLFS and CBLFS are separate, but cooperating, projects and several (many?) of the pages in CBLFS are taken from BLFS and modified as necessary for CBLFS. A single link to BLFS (for 32bit Intel systems) in the same place would be nice too. In the same manner, BLFS could put a note in the Preface saying that it is focused on Intel-32 bit architectures as is LFS and that other architectures are covered in CBLFS. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
