On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d-announce <email@example.com> wrote: > On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:03:25 +0200, Rory McGuire via > Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > >> The problem is the D logo etc at the top of his docs mixed with Adam's >> resentment. Your email validates what I was suggesting he should avoid. > > My newsreader's history doesn't support your memory of events. > > The problem you cited was "insulting our official docs" and (nonexistent) > community splits resulting from the insults. Your predicted / recommended > response to that problem was "a cease and desist letter from the D > Foundation". > > There's no evidence that you considered trademark issues at all until I > brought them up. If I'd cited copyright infringement instead, I'm betting > you would have jumped on that, even though the docs are Boost-licensed.
Are you trying to understand me, or alienate me? I'm unsure what your motivation is for undermining my trying to explain myself in more words. > > What I would actually expect, instead of a C&D letter, is a set of > guidelines for using the D logo and other trademarked material. That's > pretty standard for open source projects. And if those guidelines forbad > using the D logo for a documentation mirror, that would be a problem. > > An airtight set of guidelines probably requires a trademark lawyer, which > probably costs more than the D Foundation has in its coffers. We might > see a preliminary set of guidelines coming out in the next year or so. > > I don't see how a criticism of the official documentation (even one you > believe is insulting) fragments the community. Most people around here > think D's documentation is a problem. Adam Ruppe provided both specific > feedback and an implemented alternative, which is much more constructive > than average. He's got a pull request for content changes that he's made, > too, which is the opposite of fragmentation.