Venkat,
Just to dispel what is apparently a common misunderstanding, the documentation that existed in log4j 1.1.3 remains in the log4j 1.2-alpha6 distribution. In fact, the javadocs and the short manual have been improved in the various log4j 1.2 alphas compared to 1.1.3. It was never ever my intention to render log4j unusable by removing all documentation. I deserve more credit than that. The only documentation that was removed is the long manual. The long manual was introduced in October 2001 and was part of the 1.2 alphas since then, until the recent 1.2-alpha6, where it was removed. The long manual was always explicitly copyrighted by me. Also note that log4j version 1.1.3, currently the official release of log4j, is not shipped with the long manual. Admittedly, the short manual is less detailed than the long manual but it is inaccurate to say that log4j is unusable without the long manual. Regards, Ceki At 15:44 10.01.2002 -0500, Sonnathi, Venkat Ramana wrote: >I agree with Jon. Please don't take away documentation from the project. >Please do feel free to write the book and sell it but don't force the users >to buy it. > >Thanks, >--Venkat. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jon Skeet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, January 10,2002 2:14 PM >To: Log4J Developers List >Subject: RE: [POLL] Commercial documentation > > >> 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. > >Jon > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
