RE: www.gnu.org guidelines and the plan for hurd.gnu.org

[Jim Franklin]

i was thinkng more along the lines of:

1) build the website at an independent location
2) upload to gnu.org about 2 weeks prior to deadline
3) ask gnu.org webmasters for review (one main review and one final review)
4) make corrections and repeat 3) for final review, what doesn't make final
review is deleted

The cmu in the link below is an abbreviation for Carnegie Mellon University.
To find the license trace the documents to their source and asking around
there would seem to be the best course of action. Asking for a link from the
webpages to the documents may be the best way to go though.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ognyan Kulev [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 3:38 AM
To: Jim Franklin
Cc: Ognyan Kulev; address@hidden
Subject: Re: www.gnu.org guidelines and the plan for hurd.gnu.org


On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 12:26:05AM -0700, Jim Franklin wrote:
> Hi,
>  Thanks for the link. I reckon the chances are better for the folks who
> follow the guidelines on getting their work past the gnu webmasters.
Myself,
> I have a hankering to try my hand at writing some XML although most of my
> work will be HTML 4 comliant with use of CSS. My opinion is everyone
should
> go with what they want to try and what the gnu webmasters don't like, I'm
> sure they'll let us know when we ask them for a final review of our work.
It
> will be the gnu webmasters who have the final say on the work.
>
> Jim

So, is this the situation?

1. We build a web-site.  The parts of the site are send to web-hurd for
   approval among ourselfs.
2. Ask gnu.org webmasters if it is ok
3. If not, change it and go to 2
4. Upload the new site till 31 May


And something important.  I'm exploring GNUMach now and the documents Mach 3
Kernel Principles and Mach 3 Server Writer are *very* good.  But I don't
know what their license is.  They can be found in
ftp://ftp.lip6.fr/pub/mach/cmu/doc/osf/

Regards
--
Ognyan Kulev <address@hidden>, "\"Programmer\""