On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 20:43 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jean Hollis Weber
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 10:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > -1
>> >
>> > I don't understand why there is continued pressing that things
not in a release have to be treated as if it requires the same
treatment as the content of a release. I thought we had worked a
high-level sketch of the user documentation case with Jean Hollis
Weber some time ago on this list.
>> >
>>
>> That was something else entirely, ODFAuthors.org, a site that is
>> external to Apache. We're not discussing that right now. What
we're
>> discussing is the content at wiki.services.openoffice.org, which
we
>> are planning to be part of the Apache OpenOffice project. Two
>> different things.
>
> *I* was talking about the docs produced by ODFAuthors, in my note
quoted
> below, and I asked a question that was not answered; the answer
was
> about the material directly edited on the wiki, not about the
material I
> asked about.
>
From licensing perspective it is the same, whether it is content in
wikitext or content in attachments to a wiki page. The thing that
would be different would be links to content on external sites.
If that is not answering your question, maybe you should restate,
with
a link to a specific example.
The user guides are dual-licensed under CC-BY and GPL, and the past
contributors have obviously agreed to those licenses. They have not
agreed to the Apache license, and most of them cannot be found to ask
if
they agree. We can't just relicense the books under the Apache
license.
What you have said tells me that those books cannot be attachments on
a
Apache-OOo wiki page. Is that correct? If so, then we can host them
elsewhere and link to them from the wiki.
Does this also mean that the guides cannot be part of the official
documentation set? That's okay with me (not sure what other
contributors
think), but it seems less than ideal for the project.
Examples of the existing user guides can be downloaded from this page
and pages linked to it:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
--Jean
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 05:04
>> > To: [email protected]
>> > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo +
OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Jean Hollis Weber
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 21:24 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >>> I'd look at it like this: The documentation that is needed
for our
>> >>> users to be successful with our product, from end users, to
admins, to
>> >>> application developers, that documentation is product
documentation.
>> >>> If having it deleted or defaced, without us noticing it,
would cause
>> >>> our users some harm, then it is product documentation. If
the right
>> >>> to copy, modify and redistribute the documentation is
essentially to
>> >>> successful creating and hosting a new port or translation, or
even a
>> >>> commercial derivative or an open source fork, of the project,
then it
>> >>> is product documentation.
>> >>
>> >> Leaving aside for the moment all the other user-doc type items
on the
>> >> wiki, and looking specifically at the existing current set of
user
>> >> guides (which are in ODT/PDF format, but made available for
download
>> >> from the existing OOo wiki), I'm unclear how they will fit
into this.
>> >> They are not currently under the Apache license, and we would
never be
>> >> able to track down all the contributors to get them to agree
to the
>> >> license and/or sign the iCLA. So are we talking only about
future
>> >> updates to these docs? And if so, do you mean that every
future
>> >> contributor to these guides during their production must sign
the iCLA?
>> >> Or just that only someone with suitable access rights
(committer?) can
>> >> put them on the wiki (in ODT/PDF format)? Or something else?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'd like us to treat documentation like we do code. Not
necessarily
>> > the same tools, but the same care for provenance,
accountability and
>> > quality, namely:
>> >
>> > 1) We welcome "patches" and "contributions" from anyone, but
these
>> > must be first reviewed and approved by a project committer
before they
>> > become part of the documentation set. Any such contributions
must be
>> > made under Apache 2.0 license.
>> >
>> > 2) Only project committers have direct write access to the
>> > documentation. This requires that they first sign the iCLA.
>> >
>> > 3) All contributions, whether from the public or from
committers and
>> > tracked/logged, so we can accurately determine who made a given
>> > change. So no anonymous or pseudonymous patches. A user id
that we
>> > can trace to a real email address is fine.
>> >
>> > With code this works by non-committer contributors sending
patches
>> > (diffs) to the mailing list, where they are merged in and
reviewed by
>> > a committer, and then checked into the repository. With
>> > documentation, using a wiki , we would need a different
mechanism for
>> > achieving this. Luckily there are MediaWiki extensions to
enable
>> > this.
>> >
>> > I'd like to preserve the immediate nature of editing on the
wiki.
>> > That is its strength. But we need to find away to also get
this under
>> > project oversight as well. I think we can do both, without too
much
>> > annoyance to contributors.
>> >
