On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Brian Behlendorf <br...@behlendorf.com>wrote:
> > Nice start! Quick comments, all in humble opinion which is why I didn't > make edits directly... > > > - Any suggestions on the presentation of the information? i.e., is simple >> bold headings OK? Should we do some fancy table thing instead? Do you >> like/dislike the ": Information" and ": License Text" I added to the <h1> >> headers? >> > > I think it should be clearly visually distinct from the text of the > license itself, say in a different box with a different background color, > just to make it clear to the first-time reader within a few seconds that > this metadata is not the text of the license. The table of contents for > the license and the text of the license should be more closely visually > aligned than this metadata. > <nod> This sort of finetuning probably needs to happen on opensource.org (drupal) rather than wiki.opensource.org (dokuwiki) just because of the differences in stylesheets, etc., etc. Speaking of that: is it possible for someone skilled in Drupal to advise how we could make a "license" template that would handle this automagically, instead of requiring hand-crafted HTML in each page? > - Any comments on what information is/isn't presented? (If you must have >> extensive discussion of the existing categories or the >> desirability/possibility of getting more objective information, please >> change the email subject header :) >> > > A link to both the submission and the notes from the board meeting where > the license was approved would seem good. > The board meeting notes, in every case that I'm aware of, are pretty uninformative- they simply say approved/not approved. I'm open to persuasion on this point, I suppose, but I'm inclined to see it as noise/additional clutter. > The link to "license category" should go straight to the license category > page, not to the proliferation committee report. On that page, each > license category really should get the description/criteria for that > category, rather than making the reader read through the report or guess > from the list of licenses in each category to understand what the > categories mean. > Yes, fair point re the categories page. That said, the description/criteria for the categories weren't exactly written with these uses in mind. :/ If someone wanted to take a pass at editing them into something usable for the purpose, I'd be open to that... > - Obviously this information will not all be available for all licenses. >> In those cases, should we simply omit reference to the information, or >> should we say something like "Canonical text: the canonical text is no >> longer available" or "OSI discussion: this license was approved before >> OSI's current mail archive system, and so the discussion is no longer >> available"? I think the latter. >> > > The latter, though it would be really good to dig up archives and post > them, perhaps specifically board meeting minutes where the licenses were > approved. > Yes, I do want to be aggressive about digging up the old records. Luis
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss