I've purposely remained quiet for awhile, waiting on others to offer information. But I'm going to add my own anecdotal experiences over the past 18 years with various entities, 'as a peer.'
DISCLAIMER: I do not speak for anyone, I've just been involved with CompTIA, LPI, Red Hat (including partners, not just customers) documentation and/or exam development. This is offered at only 'peer advice' and may not be correct. > I'm very happy to see that LPI provides documentation for the > > certifications it offers. I'm allowed to use it in my trainings. But > > I'm not allowed to sell it. > > So, you are allowed to use the material in training if you wish. > I am still struggling with the concept that you are not allowed to sell > it is a protection measure and not a limitation on usage in a training? > Clearly I'm not a legal person. > Many Certification & Training entities not only require you to license their materials -- even yourself and your business -- and license them for your courses, but that's a good bit of their 'Cash Cow' (unlike LPI, quite rare in this space). BTW, I'm not just talking about Red Hat (Red Hat actually loses money on Certification, and Subsidizes it with Training -- long story), but even vendor-agnostic organizations like CompTIA and another Linux entity I won't name (and it would be biased of me to name them as well). No 'Service' or 'Product' at all, without a commercial license. Service v. Product 'Service' - What LPI is offering for everyone is the right to use their fixed set of published resources as part of their Delivery and Services, seemingly without any added licensure, and sticking with the well-regarded Common Criteria Attribution and No Derivative license. This way you can use and deliver a service with them, a common set of solutions, without the restrictions of others. It's more about maintaining integrity than anything. 'Product' - No derived works. Of course if someone wants to negotiate a different license with LPI, just like they have to with others (if others will even do so), then that is no different. But many of us have seen what has happened over the decades, and one thing LPI has seemingly cared about isn't so much who does what, but how it reflects the quality of LPI's professionals and roles. This is the solution ... it's LPI's product, anyone can Deliver it, provide it as a Service, but it remains LPI. Again, it's more about maintaining integrity than anything. I may be mistaken in some cases, and NONE of the above should be considered any 'official' statement other than from my quite opinionated and annoying self. ;) -- Bryan J Smith - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith E-mail: b.j.smith at ieee.org or me at bjsmith.me
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
