At 12:31 10.01.2002 -0800, you wrote: >Ceki, > >I basicly agree with Jon on this one. Documentation, like the current manual, I >prefer to see as part of the project. However, a book on log4j -- how it works, how >to modify it, etc with more extensive code examples as such -- would certainly be >something appropriate to do for-profit outside of apache. Take a look at the >O'Reilly books and you'll see many examples of that sort of thing. If you >do decide to go down the book writting path, I can get you in touch with O'Reilly >through one of their current writers.
I guess I don't understand the difference between good manual and a book. What is the difference? The current short manual is about 15 pages long. The current long manual is 50 pages long. A book would be around 200-300 pages long. Is it length that differentiates documentation from book? Or is it paper versus digital? Can it be that the difference is artificial? It's an honest question! The long version of the manual still requires a lot of work. Imagine if the long manual were inserted back to the distribution, who would continue enhancing it? It couldn't be me could it? I mean how could I maintain the manual and at the same time write a book? Assuming I started to write a book based on the long manual, wouldn't this create friction between me (the book author) and the author of the manual? If the manual were both complete and polished, who would buy the book? Anyway, I have not yet made up my mind on this. I need to think it over. Your input is much appreciated. In the mean time, the long manual will not go into CVS because the foundation strongly opposes content which it does not hold copyright to. I do not intend to break this rule again and create further trouble. >As for maintaining log4j I'm interested. You've covered the list so well I figured >you had everything under control. Tell me more about what is involved and what you >spend time working on for log4j and we can find a way to share the maintainence or >shift it to me. Maintaining log4j basically means listening to users and implementing features that are most wanted. You must also innovate to keep running in front of the competition. Do I need to mention fixing bugs? testing? and testing? and testing? Are you sure you want this job? :-) Regards, Ceki >Kevin > > >Ceki Gülcü wrote: > >> 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
