At 19:14 10.01.2002 +0000, Jon Skeet wrote: >> I am pondering whether it is possible to earn revenue by offering >> log4j documentation online, a bit like what JBoss is trying to >> do. Needless to say, the log4j API (the software) will always be >> licensed under the Apache Software license and would include some >> basic documentation. However, writing good documentation is very time >> consuming and I'd like to see if I can get paid to do it. >> >> This documentation will be based on the long log4j manual which was >> until recently part of log4j 1.2 alpha3, alpha4 and alpha5. However, >> the latest alpha6 does not include it. This document carried a clearly >> visible copyright notice. It was always copyrighted by me and not the >> ASF. >> >> Do you think this is an honorable approach? Your comments on the >> subject are welcome. Thank you. > >I personally don't like the idea. It feels like it goes against the spirit of the >open source movement in general. I'd like to think that good documentation should >come with good software - the fact that it generally doesn't isn't a reason to follow >that model. > >I rather suspect that if you go this way, others will write a good manual which *is* >open source and part of the kit/website. I would try to support such an effort, >although I'm in no way a technical writer. As the sole committer for the Log4j >project you could, of course, avoid putting it into CVS, but I feel that would >splinter the project quite severely. > >I know it's nice to get money for things, and I'm in no way averse to writing code >for a living (otherwise I wouldn't do it), but I don't think it goes along with the >spirit of the rest of the project. > >I know that people *are* writing books for profit based on Ant, Struts etc, and see >no reason you shouldn't do this as well - but not by pulling decent documentation >away from Log4j leaving only minimal documentation in the project.
I very much appreciate your comments. If I were in your seat, I'd probably say exactly the same things but not as well. Avoiding splintering the project is extremely important. I would very much like to avoid it, even if it means abandoning this idea and placing the long documentation back into the log4j distribution. There are currently 6 committers whose vote count as much as mine. Clearly, I am not the only one with commit capability. Even if I were, it would look extremely bad if I consistently rejected patches to the open-source documentation. My aim is not to irritate everyone and to destroy the project. On the contrary, I would like to spend more time working on log4j while keeping its existing good sprit. As I see it, log4j is a full time job. If anyone is willing to invest the kind of energy that log4j demands then I would be willing to share responsibility or even let that person or persons take over. At present time, I don't see it happening. For example, the longer manual is copyrighted by me is because I actually wrote it alone. Obviously, I also decided not to donate it to the ASF (yet!). Do you know any capable person who is willing to maintain or co-maintain the log4j API? I am certainly willing to listen and share the work. Regards, Ceki -- Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
