Bruce Dubbs wrote: > 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. > > No it's not. BLFS is a project, but only the editors can add to it. CBLFS is project were anyone with access can update and add packages.
> I see the note: "Please don't add information from BLFS. BLFS is > copyrighted." > > We don't want people to copy the wordings from one book to place it another. That's not the purpose of the project. Shoot if that's what we wanted, I would loaded the BLFS xml into the wiki. > 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. > > We are still experimenting with the wiki stuff, this could be possible. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
