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press or advertising -- the Internet is often less precise & therefore can be seriously misleading: there is a lot of out-of-date information lying around & no-one to take responsibility for it.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