>On Thur, 15 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"? > >> > >> >> >On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, A. R. (Tom) Peters wrote: >> > >> > Sue them? LPI, LPIC will be trademarked etc. >> >> >>On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Tom Pilsch wrote: >> >> 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. > >On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, A. R. (Tom) Peters wrote: > > 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). Exactly! The awarding and use of the term LPIC is what LPI needs to guard jeolously. This is what will be awarded only by successfully passing the LPI certification exams which are based on the LPI standards. Vendors should be free to teach to the standard but not award the title "LPIC." Tom Pilsch Continuing Education Program Georgia Tech College of Computing ________________________________________________________________________ This message was sent by the linux-cert-corprel mailing list. To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
