Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Akademy: Defensive publicationsAkademy: Defensive publicationsPosted Jul 5, 2012 8:22 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646)Parent article: Akademy: Defensive publications
Ain't LWN.net's kernel articles, the ones that describe subsystems or patches that are proposed for mainline, prime examples of "defensive publications" for that database?
Are they included?
(Log in to post comments)
Akademy: Defensive publications Posted Jul 6, 2012 18:03 UTC (Fri) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
Disclaimer: I work for the Linux Defenders program.
They are indeed very good examples, but right now they are not included, because we believe it would be best if the "inventors" (the kernel developers who came up with the ideas) would be the best person to write and submit defensive publications, because they know best what they did. We would highly encourage it.
Akademy: Defensive publications Posted Jul 6, 2012 18:09 UTC (Fri) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
"best persons", not "best person". d'oh.
Akademy: Defensive publications Posted Jul 9, 2012 16:42 UTC (Mon) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375) [Link]
> ... [W]e believe it would be best if the "inventors" (the kernel developers who came up with the ideas) would be the best person to write and submit defensive publication.
But you'll take a description of what the code actually *does*, with a reference to the git commits which brought it into the public knowledge space, as a good second-class documentation of 'we had this problem, we solved it in this way; it enables features X, Y and Z', right?
K3n.
Akademy: Defensive publications Posted Jul 11, 2012 11:12 UTC (Wed) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
As long as the main document describes all the ideas and the references are just that (references to more information, but not needed to understand the "innovation"): absolutely.
Akademy: Defensive publications Posted Jul 15, 2012 22:51 UTC (Sun) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Just FMI - aren't you being a bit too critical in this regard? Considering these authors often read (and comment upon) those articles? It seems to me our esteemed editor is rather adept at what he does... Good enough for defensive publications? Or are there other things at hand here, like a decrease in credibility if the publication is not written by the author of the idea?
|
|||||||||||||