On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Tom Pilsch wrote:
> >> For those who would favor approving each vendor's program, what would LPI
> >> do if a vendor who did not have an LPI-approved curriculum used the
> >> following words in their marketing material: "We teach to the LPI
> >> standard"?
> >
> > Sue them? LPI, LPIC will be trademarked etc.
>
> I hope this response was in jest. Surely you are not advocating a closed
> standard for open source software! Do we intend to charge people just to
> use the standard in a training course? You need to think this through very
> carefully.
The test objectives are freely available (POMS), with the intention that
anyone who likes can build a training program fit to it. If they say so
much, no problem. However, if they suggest their program is LPI approved,
that is questionable; we still have the option open to certify courses.
LPIC will be the title for someone who passed the test, and training
vendors will not be allowed to abuse that word (like suggesting you will
be an LPIC just because you take their courses).
--
#>!$!%(@^%#%*(&(#@#*$^@^$##*#@&(%)@**$!(&!^(#((#&%!)%*@)(&$($$%(@#)&*!^$)^@*^@)
Tom "thriving on chaos" Peters
NL-1062 KD nr 149 tel. 31-204080204
Amsterdam e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by the linux-cert-corprel mailing list. To unsubscribe:
echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
