Thanks re: Release TODO

[MARTIN DIXON]

Thanks Tom   Will address whole list for new stuff. 

Re Legal - No!  How to clear this up? 

When other pages are clear link = title I found Legal link confusing because it did not lead to Legal title.
The content of the page - whatever it is - (I suggest) should reflect the title in the context in which it appears; hence the existing page is Ok.
Do we need ten pages of 'stuff' if we can state our position simply.  Whether there is a need for more 'proprietary' content is another matter.  

Martin

Tom Davieswrote



Writing to the whole list is best.   
..........
So, even though it is a bit different to a proprietary project's "Legal" page i think it is about as close as we get.  The page might need more work to bring it more consistent with the "Legal" page on proprietary equivalents as pages are
 rarely static and completed.  Situations change, new releases happen, new functionality gets added or default programs get swapped for others.  People may be looking for a "Legal" page and may then get confused if the page names are unusual.  I think we need to try to look as normal as possible from the outside.  I'm sure a LOT of people disagree with me on that.  

So i think what you are saying is that we need to add a whole bunch of stuff to the page?





________________________________
 MARTIN DIXON wrote
 


Footers accepted I note that the Link (Legal) appears in the URL https://help.ubuntu.com/legal.html 

but unlike the other two (links in the footer) not in the title of the page - Credits and License.

As Open Source has a totally different "legal" to other proprietary 'offerings'
I found this confusing - could the link Legal be changed to Credits and License?

Martin

ubuntu-doc mailing list
ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20130827/bbe24ab3/attachment.html>