We don't mind people taking our doc's wholesale, but they
for sure should indicate where they obtained them.
This has not been done. Possibly this comes back to how our docs are licensed? ASLv2.0? The reason I reiterate this point is that quite simply I (and I can imagine many many others) are completely turned off by the thought that third party publishers are looking to make a cheap bug out of well written and carefully constructed community documentation. I am coming from a foundation-wide POV here. What safe guards do we have in place to address this situation as it is quite clearly a problem?
I think royalties are in order; simply attribution and
acknowledgement is fine.
Without putting words in your mouth, are you indirectly saying that TheASF is NOT receiving any kind of benefit from Packt (and others) using our trademarks and more specifically our documentation in this manner? This does not seem to agree with some conversation I've had elsewhere.
Is/are there any archive documentation in SVN which details any relationships dealings with publishers of our content?
I think we really need to clarify the above points... along with my other questions.
Although I have not been around as long as many many others, I have not spent years of my life contributing under the foundation model only for people to snatch the content, wrap their name around it, package it and ship it as if it is their product, time and effort. That in my eyes is not on. It is clear plagiarism, and whilst this may not be a legal issue (maybe it is I am not knowledgeable to provide a concrete opinion) it is certainly one which highlights the requirement to obtain safe guards and protection for the communities and people who make and contribute to this foundation.
Thanks for your comments. As I said Jim, I am NOT trying to put words in to your mouth. I am however curious to get to the bottom of where 'we' stand on this one. Thanks