You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> on 2011/09/05 14:34:05 UTC
Status of existing OOo user guides
Just trying to be quite clear on something here, since every time the
topic turns up, it seems to mutate into a wider discussion without
actually answering the question of the relationship of the existing
user guides to AOOo.
We have established that relicensing the existing OOo user guides
(which are licensed CC-BY) to the Apache license is not practical.
Does this mean, as Rob has suggested, that these guides *cannot* be
part of the "official" documentation for AOOo or only *should not* be
part of that doco?
I think Rob's suggestions for "boldly going where OOo Docs have not
gone before" are good ones, but they won't happen immediately. In the
short term (for the next release of the software), we are most likely
to have a choice between updated CC-BY-licensed user guides, or no
user guides at all.
What should I tell the small group that remains from the ODFAuthors
team that has been working on the user guides?
--Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Wanda Phillips <we...@me.com>.
Jean,
You will be missed! Your dedication, attention to detail, and global view of the project made the wheels turn and kept the work on track. With Hazel and you moving on, we'll have big boots to fill.
I appreciate your effort and I wish I had been able to work more closely with you.
Thank you for shouldering the burden this far,
Wanda
------------------
...in order to understand the true nature of reality, we must realize that nothing ever really happens.
Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Rinpoche, Sun of Wisdom (Shambhala Publications), 3-4.
------------------
On Sep 6, 2011, at 18:01, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 22:29, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm fairly sure that whatever route AOOo chooses to take, I won't be
>>> interested in being part of it. I had no real idea of what would be
>>> involved here (I suspect few of us did) and now realise that it's
>>> probably just not my thing.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not really seeing how the move to AOOo makes it any different from
>> ODFAuthors. You were a separate group before, and you remain so
>> today. Remaining independent is a fine choice. Working within the
>> project is fine as well, but then we need to resolve the license
>> issues.
>>
>
> Regardless of what the other members of ODFAuthors choose to do
> regarding AOOo and the existing user guides, and where they choose to
> do it, I am burnt out and not interested in continuing. Possibly,
> after 6 months or more away (what Aussies call "long service leave"),
> I'll be interested in returning, but no one should count on it.
>
> Other members of ODFAuthors involved with OOo user guides can choose
> which way they individually, and perhaps as a group, wish to proceed.
> The source for the books is available on the OOo/Docs wiki as well as
> the ODFAuthors website.
>
> --Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
I am also extremely disappointed by the tone of many of the conversations on ooo-dev - particularly in the last week, and I understand if you have no desire to add unhealthful stress to life. It's a problem for me as well.
Wishing you all the best and sorry this happened.
Best Regards,
Dave
On Sep 6, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Jean Weber wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 07:01, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Regardless of what the other members of ODFAuthors choose to do
>> regarding AOOo and the existing user guides, and where they choose to
>> do it, I am burnt out and not interested in continuing.
>
> That includes, in case it's not obvious, moderating any docs list set
> up at AOOo.
>
> --Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 07:01, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Regardless of what the other members of ODFAuthors choose to do
> regarding AOOo and the existing user guides, and where they choose to
> do it, I am burnt out and not interested in continuing.
That includes, in case it's not obvious, moderating any docs list set
up at AOOo.
--Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 22:29, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm fairly sure that whatever route AOOo chooses to take, I won't be
>> interested in being part of it. I had no real idea of what would be
>> involved here (I suspect few of us did) and now realise that it's
>> probably just not my thing.
>>
>
> I'm not really seeing how the move to AOOo makes it any different from
> ODFAuthors. You were a separate group before, and you remain so
> today. Remaining independent is a fine choice. Working within the
> project is fine as well, but then we need to resolve the license
> issues.
>
Regardless of what the other members of ODFAuthors choose to do
regarding AOOo and the existing user guides, and where they choose to
do it, I am burnt out and not interested in continuing. Possibly,
after 6 months or more away (what Aussies call "long service leave"),
I'll be interested in returning, but no one should count on it.
Other members of ODFAuthors involved with OOo user guides can choose
which way they individually, and perhaps as a group, wish to proceed.
The source for the books is available on the OOo/Docs wiki as well as
the ODFAuthors website.
--Jean
Re: Catching up
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Congratulations on the new job, Wanda.
>
> I think a documentation team list would be a good idea as well, as it would
> be far easier to filter by "sent_to" than by topic or content.
>
Let me start a thread over on odfauthors-discuss@lists.odfauthors.org
to see what the degree of interest is. If that works out I'll start a
{PROPOSAL] thread here.
-Rob
> -Wolf
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Wanda Phillips <we...@me.com>wrote:
>
>> Yes, thanks Rob, the emails sort of get filtered on my iPad version of an
>> e-mail reader. Sometimes just figuring out which thread I should be trying
>> to follow has been difficult. I really didn't get what a ballyhoo this move
>> meant.
>>
>> I've just started a new job, so the combination of changes are really
>> spinning me about. I look forward to contributing and with the recent thread
>> about the effect of Symphony on the I terrace, think that it's a perfect
>> storm. Might just be the right time to make the structural changes you were
>> suggesting, Jean.
>>
>> Wanda
>> ------------------
>> ...in order to understand the true nature of reality, we must realize that
>> nothing ever really happens.
>> Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Rinpoche, Sun of Wisdom (Shambhala Publications),
>> 3-4.
>> ------------------
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:44, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Wanda Phillips <we...@me.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> I've come over from the Open Office authors mailing list and but am
>> finding the pace of discussion a tad overwhelming. I haven't had time to
>> absorb what's going on in my own life, let alone on these lists.
>> >> I'd like to work on the documentation in spite of the madness in my own
>> life, but wading through the various threads has thinned my enthusiasm some.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hi Wanda,
>> >
>> > I agree, it is getting noisy.
>> >
>> > Do you have any ability to filter your emails by subject line? One
>> > thing would could do is ensure that all doc-related emails start with
>> > [DOC] in their subject lines. In many email clients you can define an
>> > inbox filtering rule to handle this pattern.
>> >
>> > Another option -- suggested by Jean in another thread -- is to create
>> > a separate list, ooo-doc, or ooo-docs or ooo-infodev for
>> > documentation-related threads.
>> >
>> > -Rob
>> >
>> >> Wanda
>> >> ------------------
>> >> ...in order to understand the true nature of reality, we must realize
>> that nothing ever really happens.
>> >> Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Rinpoche, Sun of Wisdom (Shambhala
>> Publications), 3-4.
>> >> ------------------
>> >>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com
>
Re: Catching up
Posted by Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com>.
Congratulations on the new job, Wanda.
I think a documentation team list would be a good idea as well, as it would
be far easier to filter by "sent_to" than by topic or content.
-Wolf
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Wanda Phillips <we...@me.com>wrote:
> Yes, thanks Rob, the emails sort of get filtered on my iPad version of an
> e-mail reader. Sometimes just figuring out which thread I should be trying
> to follow has been difficult. I really didn't get what a ballyhoo this move
> meant.
>
> I've just started a new job, so the combination of changes are really
> spinning me about. I look forward to contributing and with the recent thread
> about the effect of Symphony on the I terrace, think that it's a perfect
> storm. Might just be the right time to make the structural changes you were
> suggesting, Jean.
>
> Wanda
> ------------------
> ...in order to understand the true nature of reality, we must realize that
> nothing ever really happens.
> Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Rinpoche, Sun of Wisdom (Shambhala Publications),
> 3-4.
> ------------------
>
> On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:44, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Wanda Phillips <we...@me.com>
> wrote:
> >> I've come over from the Open Office authors mailing list and but am
> finding the pace of discussion a tad overwhelming. I haven't had time to
> absorb what's going on in my own life, let alone on these lists.
> >> I'd like to work on the documentation in spite of the madness in my own
> life, but wading through the various threads has thinned my enthusiasm some.
> >>
> >
> > Hi Wanda,
> >
> > I agree, it is getting noisy.
> >
> > Do you have any ability to filter your emails by subject line? One
> > thing would could do is ensure that all doc-related emails start with
> > [DOC] in their subject lines. In many email clients you can define an
> > inbox filtering rule to handle this pattern.
> >
> > Another option -- suggested by Jean in another thread -- is to create
> > a separate list, ooo-doc, or ooo-docs or ooo-infodev for
> > documentation-related threads.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >> Wanda
> >> ------------------
> >> ...in order to understand the true nature of reality, we must realize
> that nothing ever really happens.
> >> Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Rinpoche, Sun of Wisdom (Shambhala
> Publications), 3-4.
> >> ------------------
> >>
>
--
This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com
Re: Catching up
Posted by Wanda Phillips <we...@me.com>.
Yes, thanks Rob, the emails sort of get filtered on my iPad version of an e-mail reader. Sometimes just figuring out which thread I should be trying to follow has been difficult. I really didn't get what a ballyhoo this move meant.
I've just started a new job, so the combination of changes are really spinning me about. I look forward to contributing and with the recent thread about the effect of Symphony on the I terrace, think that it's a perfect storm. Might just be the right time to make the structural changes you were suggesting, Jean.
Wanda
------------------
...in order to understand the true nature of reality, we must realize that nothing ever really happens.
Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Rinpoche, Sun of Wisdom (Shambhala Publications), 3-4.
------------------
On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:44, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Wanda Phillips <we...@me.com> wrote:
>> I've come over from the Open Office authors mailing list and but am finding the pace of discussion a tad overwhelming. I haven't had time to absorb what's going on in my own life, let alone on these lists.
>> I'd like to work on the documentation in spite of the madness in my own life, but wading through the various threads has thinned my enthusiasm some.
>>
>
> Hi Wanda,
>
> I agree, it is getting noisy.
>
> Do you have any ability to filter your emails by subject line? One
> thing would could do is ensure that all doc-related emails start with
> [DOC] in their subject lines. In many email clients you can define an
> inbox filtering rule to handle this pattern.
>
> Another option -- suggested by Jean in another thread -- is to create
> a separate list, ooo-doc, or ooo-docs or ooo-infodev for
> documentation-related threads.
>
> -Rob
>
>> Wanda
>> ------------------
>> ...in order to understand the true nature of reality, we must realize that nothing ever really happens.
>> Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Rinpoche, Sun of Wisdom (Shambhala Publications), 3-4.
>> ------------------
>>
Re: Catching up
Posted by Matt Richards <mr...@gmail.com>.
I'm all for creating a separated documentation list.. I suppose using the
[DOC] subject tag on this list would work as well, but then again you have
to remember to use it..
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Wanda Phillips <we...@me.com>
> wrote:
> > I've come over from the Open Office authors mailing list and but am
> finding the pace of discussion a tad overwhelming. I haven't had time to
> absorb what's going on in my own life, let alone on these lists.
> > I'd like to work on the documentation in spite of the madness in my own
> life, but wading through the various threads has thinned my enthusiasm some.
> >
>
> Hi Wanda,
>
> I agree, it is getting noisy.
>
> Do you have any ability to filter your emails by subject line? One
> thing would could do is ensure that all doc-related emails start with
> [DOC] in their subject lines. In many email clients you can define an
> inbox filtering rule to handle this pattern.
>
> Another option -- suggested by Jean in another thread -- is to create
> a separate list, ooo-doc, or ooo-docs or ooo-infodev for
> documentation-related threads.
>
> -Rob
>
> > Wanda
> > ------------------
> > ...in order to understand the true nature of reality, we must realize
> that nothing ever really happens.
> > Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Rinpoche, Sun of Wisdom (Shambhala
> Publications), 3-4.
> > ------------------
> >
>
--
--Matt
Re: Catching up
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Wanda Phillips <we...@me.com> wrote:
> I've come over from the Open Office authors mailing list and but am finding the pace of discussion a tad overwhelming. I haven't had time to absorb what's going on in my own life, let alone on these lists.
> I'd like to work on the documentation in spite of the madness in my own life, but wading through the various threads has thinned my enthusiasm some.
>
Hi Wanda,
I agree, it is getting noisy.
Do you have any ability to filter your emails by subject line? One
thing would could do is ensure that all doc-related emails start with
[DOC] in their subject lines. In many email clients you can define an
inbox filtering rule to handle this pattern.
Another option -- suggested by Jean in another thread -- is to create
a separate list, ooo-doc, or ooo-docs or ooo-infodev for
documentation-related threads.
-Rob
> Wanda
> ------------------
> ...in order to understand the true nature of reality, we must realize that nothing ever really happens.
> Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Rinpoche, Sun of Wisdom (Shambhala Publications), 3-4.
> ------------------
>
Catching up
Posted by Wanda Phillips <we...@me.com>.
I've come over from the Open Office authors mailing list and but am finding the pace of discussion a tad overwhelming. I haven't had time to absorb what's going on in my own life, let alone on these lists.
I'd like to work on the documentation in spite of the madness in my own life, but wading through the various threads has thinned my enthusiasm some.
Wanda
------------------
...in order to understand the true nature of reality, we must realize that nothing ever really happens.
Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Rinpoche, Sun of Wisdom (Shambhala Publications), 3-4.
------------------
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Something to remember is that Symphony is only the three main apps.
>> It does not cover, for example, Base. So even if we did switch to
>> Symphony docs for the core, we'd still need to find a way to cover the
>> other pieces.
>>
>
> Does that mean we could have for AOO a commun trunk with Symphony for
> Writer, Calc, Impress, and the rest (Draw, Maths, Base) specific to AOO?
>
We haven't had that discussion yet. We'll need to figure that out
when Symphony code is contributed, exactly what we do with it. But
whatever we do, I think it is still called AOOo. It might have
feature contributions from Symphony, but that doesn't change the name.
> Best regards
> --
> gw
>
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rob,
Something to remember is that Symphony is only the three main apps.
> It does not cover, for example, Base. So even if we did switch to
> Symphony docs for the core, we'd still need to find a way to cover the
> other pieces.
>
Does that mean we could have for AOO a commun trunk with Symphony for
Writer, Calc, Impress, and the rest (Draw, Maths, Base) specific to AOO?
Best regards
--
gw
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 23:02, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Wearing my IBM hat, the larger issue, one that may not concern
>> everyone here but does concern me, is the impact the license choice
>> has on our ability to attract corporate-sponsored contributors to an
>> effort that is not using a compatible license, By analogy to the
>> project source code,under Apache 2.0, it is very easy for IBM
>> developers to contribute patches, etc., to that code. We contribute
>> and know that we improve the product as well as preserve our ability
>> to bring that code, with our fixes and other's fixes as well, and
>> include that in Symphony releases. Once we start mixing copyleft
>> components into the mix, even documentation components, we make it
>> much more difficult for risk-averse corporations to contribute.
>>
>> So this is a matter of "help me help you". If we can move to a
>> permissive/compatible license for future documentation work, then I
>> can seek contributions of Symphony-related documentations, quick
>> starts, as well help with existing doc. (In fact I've already started
>> that discussion internally at IBM, with favorable feedback). Having a
>> compatible license helps align our interests.
>>
>
> Given the lack of interest so far at ODFAuthors, I'm now thinking that
Wow, that was a fast week!
I'm signed up on the ODF Authors mailing list, and I've seen very
little. Last week was a vacation week for many in the US. School
starts today for many. I don't know if that is a factor.
You mentioned the Apache-Extras UI being not very user-friendly. I
wasn't think of sending users to that page. I was thinking of using
that mainly as a host for load/bandwidth reasons. We would still need
a user-friendly page, or set of pages, at ODFAuthors or at AOOo to
link to the documentation content. Deep-linking should be fine.
> not attempting to reuse the existing user guides may be the way to go.
> Start over with Symphony-related docs, using a new team of techwriters
> (with IBM-sponsored people as the core) and just get on with it. Save
> a lot of hassle.
>
Something to remember is that Symphony is only the three main apps.
It does not cover, for example, Base. So even if we did switch to
Symphony docs for the core, we'd still need to find a way to cover the
other pieces.
> I'm fairly sure that whatever route AOOo chooses to take, I won't be
> interested in being part of it. I had no real idea of what would be
> involved here (I suspect few of us did) and now realise that it's
> probably just not my thing.
>
I'm not really seeing how the move to AOOo makes it any different from
ODFAuthors. You were a separate group before, and you remain so
today. Remaining independent is a fine choice. Working within the
project is fine as well, but then we need to resolve the license
issues.
Regards
-Rob
> --Jean
>
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 23:02, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Wearing my IBM hat, the larger issue, one that may not concern
> everyone here but does concern me, is the impact the license choice
> has on our ability to attract corporate-sponsored contributors to an
> effort that is not using a compatible license, By analogy to the
> project source code,under Apache 2.0, it is very easy for IBM
> developers to contribute patches, etc., to that code. We contribute
> and know that we improve the product as well as preserve our ability
> to bring that code, with our fixes and other's fixes as well, and
> include that in Symphony releases. Once we start mixing copyleft
> components into the mix, even documentation components, we make it
> much more difficult for risk-averse corporations to contribute.
>
> So this is a matter of "help me help you". If we can move to a
> permissive/compatible license for future documentation work, then I
> can seek contributions of Symphony-related documentations, quick
> starts, as well help with existing doc. (In fact I've already started
> that discussion internally at IBM, with favorable feedback). Having a
> compatible license helps align our interests.
>
Given the lack of interest so far at ODFAuthors, I'm now thinking that
not attempting to reuse the existing user guides may be the way to go.
Start over with Symphony-related docs, using a new team of techwriters
(with IBM-sponsored people as the core) and just get on with it. Save
a lot of hassle.
I'm fairly sure that whatever route AOOo chooses to take, I won't be
interested in being part of it. I had no real idea of what would be
involved here (I suspect few of us did) and now realise that it's
probably just not my thing.
--Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
The fundamental point is that Apache projects need to produce useful
software for the public good, under the Apache license.
I.e. users of Apache software have expectations that they can make use
of Apache products - as well as the source code of those projects -
under the Apache license. The purpose is to ensure maximum freedom for
the users of our products and our source code.
As with any legal question, the details need to be worked out with
support from the legal team. The specific legal requirements for IP in
Apache releases is spelled out here:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
Note that Apache project websites or products are free to link to
relevant useful content for their project - including things like user
guides - which may be under most sorts of licenses.
- Shane
On 9/5/2011 9:02 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Jean Weber<je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just trying to be quite clear on something here, since every time the
>> topic turns up, it seems to mutate into a wider discussion without
>> actually answering the question of the relationship of the existing
>> user guides to AOOo.
>>
>> We have established that relicensing the existing OOo user guides
>> (which are licensed CC-BY) to the Apache license is not practical.
>> Does this mean, as Rob has suggested, that these guides *cannot* be
>> part of the "official" documentation for AOOo or only *should not* be
>> part of that doco?
>>
>
> It is a question of what we can put into a release,e.g., actually
> include in an install image, or source tarball for a release. Things
> that are part of a release must conform to ASF licensing requirements.
>
> However, I don't think that it is necessary for "official"
> documentation to be included in a release. For example, Subversion
> points to an external website for its user manual and calls it "the
> official Subversion documentation online":
> http://subversion.apache.org/
>
> Wearing my IBM hat, the larger issue, one that may not concern
> everyone here but does concern me, is the impact the license choice
> has on our ability to attract corporate-sponsored contributors to an
> effort that is not using a compatible license, By analogy to the
> project source code,under Apache 2.0, it is very easy for IBM
> developers to contribute patches, etc., to that code. We contribute
> and know that we improve the product as well as preserve our ability
> to bring that code, with our fixes and other's fixes as well, and
> include that in Symphony releases. Once we start mixing copyleft
> components into the mix, even documentation components, we make it
> much more difficult for risk-averse corporations to contribute.
>
> So this is a matter of "help me help you". If we can move to a
> permissive/compatible license for future documentation work, then I
> can seek contributions of Symphony-related documentations, quick
> starts, as well help with existing doc. (In fact I've already started
> that discussion internally at IBM, with favorable feedback). Having a
> compatible license helps align our interests.
>
>
>> I think Rob's suggestions for "boldly going where OOo Docs have not
>> gone before" are good ones, but they won't happen immediately. In the
>> short term (for the next release of the software), we are most likely
>> to have a choice between updated CC-BY-licensed user guides, or no
>> user guides at all.
>>
>
> Take a look at the Subversion home page and the link they have on the
> left. We could do something like that if we wanted. That is a good
> short-term approach. It could even work longer term, though I think
> it is a growth-limiting choice.
>
>> What should I tell the small group that remains from the ODFAuthors
>> team that has been working on the user guides?
>>
>
> Feel free to share this note. You could invite them to discuss here
> at ooo-dev, or I'd be happy to answer questions on your list, if you
> prefer.
>
> Long term, the ideal from my perspective is for ODFAuthors to become
> part of the AOOo project, have their own ooo-doc/ooo-docs/ooo-infodev
> mailing list, agree to move to ALv2 for future contributions, and
> produce docs that because of that license choice can be used freely,
> by AOOo, by LibreOffice, Symphony, even freely translated for
> RedOffice, etc. Such an arrangement also makes it easier for others
> to contribute as well, for the reasons I mentioned above.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>
>
>
>> --Jean
>>
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 23:02, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Wearing my IBM hat, the larger issue, one that may not concern
> everyone here but does concern me, is the impact the license choice
> has on our ability to attract corporate-sponsored contributors to an
> effort that is not using a compatible license, By analogy to the
> project source code,under Apache 2.0, it is very easy for IBM
> developers to contribute patches, etc., to that code. We contribute
> and know that we improve the product as well as preserve our ability
> to bring that code, with our fixes and other's fixes as well, and
> include that in Symphony releases. Once we start mixing copyleft
> components into the mix, even documentation components, we make it
> much more difficult for risk-averse corporations to contribute.
>
> So this is a matter of "help me help you". If we can move to a
> permissive/compatible license for future documentation work, then I
> can seek contributions of Symphony-related documentations, quick
> starts, as well help with existing doc. (In fact I've already started
> that discussion internally at IBM, with favorable feedback). Having a
> compatible license helps align our interests.
>
> [...]
>
> Long term, the ideal from my perspective is for ODFAuthors to become
> part of the AOOo project, have their own ooo-doc/ooo-docs/ooo-infodev
> mailing list, agree to move to ALv2 for future contributions, and
> produce docs that because of that license choice can be used freely,
> by AOOo, by LibreOffice, Symphony, even freely translated for
> RedOffice, etc. Such an arrangement also makes it easier for others
> to contribute as well, for the reasons I mentioned above.
>
One thing that has not been addressed specifically in any of these
discussions about documentation, but which I suspect will come up at
some point, is documentation version control in one or more of its
incarnations. Some of these involve change tracking at a level of
detail that I find too tedious to want to deal with. I know that
corporations often need to do this for some reason that I've long
forgotten (some ISO certification, I think), so I don't object to its
being done... but *I* don't want to be bothered. I hated dealing with
all that when I was being paid, and I for sure am not going to deal
with it when I'm not being paid. Just sayin'.
--Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:54, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>... one alternative would be to upload
> the doc to Apache-Extra.org. Projects there are hosted by Google
> Code, and also agree to these guidelines:
>
> http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/guidelines.html
>
> This is a good option for things that are not part of the project, but
> somehow related to the project.
>
I've now had a chance to look at the apache-extras site, and what I've
seen so far is very customer-unfriendly or customer-intimidating, even
worse than the ODFAuthors website. However, I don't know how much a
project could change the presentation of pages at apache-extras.
This line of enquiry may turn out to be irrelevant, if no one is
interested in updating the existing user guides. I'll wait another
week or so for people to come back from their holidays, but so far no
one that I am aware of has expressed any interest.
--Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Sep 5, 2011, at 6:04 PM, Jean Weber wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:54, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 23:02, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think Rob's suggestions for "boldly going where OOo Docs have not
>>>>> gone before" are good ones, but they won't happen immediately. In the
>>>>> short term (for the next release of the software), we are most likely
>>>>> to have a choice between updated CC-BY-licensed user guides, or no
>>>>> user guides at all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Take a look at the Subversion home page and the link they have on the
>>>> left. We could do something like that if we wanted. That is a good
>>>> short-term approach. It could even work longer term, though I think
>>>> it is a growth-limiting choice.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that is the most workable solution for the short term. We
>>> discussed it here some time ago and I at least looked at the
>>> Subversion home page and link and thought it was a good way to go.
>>>
>>> However, I am not sure where we should put the documents so they could
>>> be linked from the AOOo website. ODFAuthors is a production site, not
>>> really suitable in its present state for delivery of documents IMO. I
>>> suppose we could redesign this page
>>> http://www.odfauthors.org/openoffice.org and add whatever other pages
>>> might be needed.
>>>
>>
>> What is the concern with hosting the doc at ODFAuthors? Is the
>> load/bandwidth a concern? If so, one alternative would be to upload
>> the doc to Apache-Extra.org. Projects there are hosted by Google
>> Code, and also agree to these guidelines:
>>
>> http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/guidelines.html
>>
>> This is a good option for things that are not part of the project, but
>> somehow related to the project.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
> My main concern is that I don't think the design of the website is
> really suitable for consumers of the docs. It's set up to be a
> production site. Past experience suggests that trying to get it to
> serve both purposes will mean it serves neither well.
>
> Apache-Extra.org sounds good; I'll read the guidelines to see if I can
> spot anything of concern to me (not that I expect to).
We can always have web pages at both incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/ and support.openoffice.org/ link directly to resources at odfauthors.org/ and apache-extras/. Which depends on whether the link is about authoring or downloading documentation.
Regards,
Dave
>
> --Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:54, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 23:02, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think Rob's suggestions for "boldly going where OOo Docs have not
>>>> gone before" are good ones, but they won't happen immediately. In the
>>>> short term (for the next release of the software), we are most likely
>>>> to have a choice between updated CC-BY-licensed user guides, or no
>>>> user guides at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Take a look at the Subversion home page and the link they have on the
>>> left. We could do something like that if we wanted. That is a good
>>> short-term approach. It could even work longer term, though I think
>>> it is a growth-limiting choice.
>>
>>
>> I think that is the most workable solution for the short term. We
>> discussed it here some time ago and I at least looked at the
>> Subversion home page and link and thought it was a good way to go.
>>
>> However, I am not sure where we should put the documents so they could
>> be linked from the AOOo website. ODFAuthors is a production site, not
>> really suitable in its present state for delivery of documents IMO. I
>> suppose we could redesign this page
>> http://www.odfauthors.org/openoffice.org and add whatever other pages
>> might be needed.
>>
>
> What is the concern with hosting the doc at ODFAuthors? Is the
> load/bandwidth a concern? If so, one alternative would be to upload
> the doc to Apache-Extra.org. Projects there are hosted by Google
> Code, and also agree to these guidelines:
>
> http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/guidelines.html
>
> This is a good option for things that are not part of the project, but
> somehow related to the project.
>
> -Rob
>
My main concern is that I don't think the design of the website is
really suitable for consumers of the docs. It's set up to be a
production site. Past experience suggests that trying to get it to
serve both purposes will mean it serves neither well.
Apache-Extra.org sounds good; I'll read the guidelines to see if I can
spot anything of concern to me (not that I expect to).
--Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 23:02, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think Rob's suggestions for "boldly going where OOo Docs have not
>>> gone before" are good ones, but they won't happen immediately. In the
>>> short term (for the next release of the software), we are most likely
>>> to have a choice between updated CC-BY-licensed user guides, or no
>>> user guides at all.
>>>
>>
>> Take a look at the Subversion home page and the link they have on the
>> left. We could do something like that if we wanted. That is a good
>> short-term approach. It could even work longer term, though I think
>> it is a growth-limiting choice.
>
>
> I think that is the most workable solution for the short term. We
> discussed it here some time ago and I at least looked at the
> Subversion home page and link and thought it was a good way to go.
>
> However, I am not sure where we should put the documents so they could
> be linked from the AOOo website. ODFAuthors is a production site, not
> really suitable in its present state for delivery of documents IMO. I
> suppose we could redesign this page
> http://www.odfauthors.org/openoffice.org and add whatever other pages
> might be needed.
>
What is the concern with hosting the doc at ODFAuthors? Is the
load/bandwidth a concern? If so, one alternative would be to upload
the doc to Apache-Extra.org. Projects there are hosted by Google
Code, and also agree to these guidelines:
http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/guidelines.html
This is a good option for things that are not part of the project, but
somehow related to the project.
-Rob
> --Jean
>
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 23:02, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think Rob's suggestions for "boldly going where OOo Docs have not
>> gone before" are good ones, but they won't happen immediately. In the
>> short term (for the next release of the software), we are most likely
>> to have a choice between updated CC-BY-licensed user guides, or no
>> user guides at all.
>>
>
> Take a look at the Subversion home page and the link they have on the
> left. We could do something like that if we wanted. That is a good
> short-term approach. It could even work longer term, though I think
> it is a growth-limiting choice.
I think that is the most workable solution for the short term. We
discussed it here some time ago and I at least looked at the
Subversion home page and link and thought it was a good way to go.
However, I am not sure where we should put the documents so they could
be linked from the AOOo website. ODFAuthors is a production site, not
really suitable in its present state for delivery of documents IMO. I
suppose we could redesign this page
http://www.odfauthors.org/openoffice.org and add whatever other pages
might be needed.
--Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 07:52, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 23:02, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> What should I tell the small group that remains from the ODFAuthors
>>> team that has been working on the user guides?
>>>
>>
>> Feel free to share this note. You could invite them to discuss here
>> at ooo-dev, or I'd be happy to answer questions on your list, if you
>> prefer.
>
> I have forwarded your note to the ODFAuthors list. On several
> occasions I have invited them to join this list; I have no idea how
> many may have done so. If we start getting discussion about your
> points, it might be more efficient for you to answer questions on the
> ODFAuthors list. odfauthors-discuss-subscribe@lists.odfauthors.org
>
>>
>> Long term, the ideal from my perspective is for ODFAuthors to become
>> part of the AOOo project, have their own ooo-doc/ooo-docs/ooo-infodev
>> mailing list, agree to move to ALv2 for future contributions, and
>> produce docs that because of that license choice can be used freely,
>> by AOOo, by LibreOffice, Symphony, even freely translated for
>> RedOffice, etc. Such an arrangement also makes it easier for others
>> to contribute as well, for the reasons I mentioned above.
>
>
> ODFAuthors is just a group of people with a website and a domain name,
> both of which happen to be owned by TDF. It is available to whoever
> wants to use it for producing documentation for OOo/LO/related
> products such as NeoOffice, RedOffice, etc. At present a subset of LO
> language groups are using it (English user guides are on a different
> server and CMS), as are several OOo language groups including English.
>
> Individual members of the ODFAuthors group can join the AOOo project, of course.
>
> --Jean
>
I forgot to suggest that a quick look at http://odfauthors.org/ might
give a better idea of what we're about. Not all of the site is
currently visible to people who are not logged in, btw. Also, as the
site says, it is for document *development* not delivery. Delivery is
through the wiki or website of the program being documented.
--Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 23:02, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> What should I tell the small group that remains from the ODFAuthors
>> team that has been working on the user guides?
>>
>
> Feel free to share this note. You could invite them to discuss here
> at ooo-dev, or I'd be happy to answer questions on your list, if you
> prefer.
I have forwarded your note to the ODFAuthors list. On several
occasions I have invited them to join this list; I have no idea how
many may have done so. If we start getting discussion about your
points, it might be more efficient for you to answer questions on the
ODFAuthors list. odfauthors-discuss-subscribe@lists.odfauthors.org
>
> Long term, the ideal from my perspective is for ODFAuthors to become
> part of the AOOo project, have their own ooo-doc/ooo-docs/ooo-infodev
> mailing list, agree to move to ALv2 for future contributions, and
> produce docs that because of that license choice can be used freely,
> by AOOo, by LibreOffice, Symphony, even freely translated for
> RedOffice, etc. Such an arrangement also makes it easier for others
> to contribute as well, for the reasons I mentioned above.
ODFAuthors is just a group of people with a website and a domain name,
both of which happen to be owned by TDF. It is available to whoever
wants to use it for producing documentation for OOo/LO/related
products such as NeoOffice, RedOffice, etc. At present a subset of LO
language groups are using it (English user guides are on a different
server and CMS), as are several OOo language groups including English.
Individual members of the ODFAuthors group can join the AOOo project, of course.
--Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just trying to be quite clear on something here, since every time the
> topic turns up, it seems to mutate into a wider discussion without
> actually answering the question of the relationship of the existing
> user guides to AOOo.
>
> We have established that relicensing the existing OOo user guides
> (which are licensed CC-BY) to the Apache license is not practical.
> Does this mean, as Rob has suggested, that these guides *cannot* be
> part of the "official" documentation for AOOo or only *should not* be
> part of that doco?
>
It is a question of what we can put into a release,e.g., actually
include in an install image, or source tarball for a release. Things
that are part of a release must conform to ASF licensing requirements.
However, I don't think that it is necessary for "official"
documentation to be included in a release. For example, Subversion
points to an external website for its user manual and calls it "the
official Subversion documentation online":
http://subversion.apache.org/
Wearing my IBM hat, the larger issue, one that may not concern
everyone here but does concern me, is the impact the license choice
has on our ability to attract corporate-sponsored contributors to an
effort that is not using a compatible license, By analogy to the
project source code,under Apache 2.0, it is very easy for IBM
developers to contribute patches, etc., to that code. We contribute
and know that we improve the product as well as preserve our ability
to bring that code, with our fixes and other's fixes as well, and
include that in Symphony releases. Once we start mixing copyleft
components into the mix, even documentation components, we make it
much more difficult for risk-averse corporations to contribute.
So this is a matter of "help me help you". If we can move to a
permissive/compatible license for future documentation work, then I
can seek contributions of Symphony-related documentations, quick
starts, as well help with existing doc. (In fact I've already started
that discussion internally at IBM, with favorable feedback). Having a
compatible license helps align our interests.
> I think Rob's suggestions for "boldly going where OOo Docs have not
> gone before" are good ones, but they won't happen immediately. In the
> short term (for the next release of the software), we are most likely
> to have a choice between updated CC-BY-licensed user guides, or no
> user guides at all.
>
Take a look at the Subversion home page and the link they have on the
left. We could do something like that if we wanted. That is a good
short-term approach. It could even work longer term, though I think
it is a growth-limiting choice.
> What should I tell the small group that remains from the ODFAuthors
> team that has been working on the user guides?
>
Feel free to share this note. You could invite them to discuss here
at ooo-dev, or I'd be happy to answer questions on your list, if you
prefer.
Long term, the ideal from my perspective is for ODFAuthors to become
part of the AOOo project, have their own ooo-doc/ooo-docs/ooo-infodev
mailing list, agree to move to ALv2 for future contributions, and
produce docs that because of that license choice can be used freely,
by AOOo, by LibreOffice, Symphony, even freely translated for
RedOffice, etc. Such an arrangement also makes it easier for others
to contribute as well, for the reasons I mentioned above.
-Rob
> --Jean
>
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
--- On Wed, 9/7/11, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
> Le 06/09/11 05:34, Jean Weber a écrit :
>
> Hi Jean, all,
>
>
> >> I am afraid we must still do this. Perhaps it's
> >> easier to find the people that oppose ..
> >> Can we legally make a call to everyone that
> >> opposes the change to speak up before
> >> a certain deadline?
> >
> >
> > I don't know if that would be legal, but even if it
> > is, I think it would be very difficult to do
> > that in a fair way.
> > Where are you going to make this call? On a mailing
> > list that many early contributors no longer subscribe
> > to? On a website that they don't visit any more?
>
> You are correct in your understanding that such an approach
> would not be legal, at least in many jurisdictions. Copyright
> does not transfer by right of silence in many instances. I
> for one, for whatever insignificant part I may have in the
> current documentation (Draw, Database - English and French),
> oppose changing the terms under which I initially contributed.
>
It was a bad idea, and wasn't aware that the docs were hosted
outside the OpenOffice.org website. What we are trying to do
is save all the information that will disappear when the old
OpenOffice.org site is shutdown. Any information we can't
get under a license accepted by ASF or relocated somewhere
else dies.
Since your guides are not in imminent danger with the
migration and they are pretty much an independent effort,
I don't think we should spend any energy on it, at least
not during the project incubation phase.
> I may choose to provide new material according to "the
> Apache Way" in the future, but the heavy handedness I
> have seen elsewhere on this list has provided me with
> no incentive to be a part of the project thus far.
>
Being an independent effort you can take your own
decisions to suit better your end users, I don't
see how the transitory decisions taken here have
any effect on that, but again, it's your decision.
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Alexander Thurgood <al...@gmail.com>.
Le 06/09/11 05:34, Jean Weber a écrit :
Hi Jean, all,
>> I am afraid we must still do this. Perhaps it's easier
>> to find the people that oppose .. Can we legally make
>> a call to everyone that opposes the change to speak up
>> before a certain deadline?
>
>
> I don't know if that would be legal, but even if it is, I think it
> would be very difficult to do that in a fair way. Where are you going
> to make this call? On a mailing list that many early contributors no
> longer subscribe to? On a website that they don't visit any more?
You are correct in your understanding that such an approach would not be
legal, at least in many jurisdictions. Copyright does not transfer by
right of silence in many instances. I for one, for whatever
insignificant part I may have in the current documentation (Draw,
Database - English and French), oppose changing the terms under which I
initially contributed.
I may choose to provide new material according to "the Apache Way" in
the future, but the heavy handedness I have seen elsewhere on this list
has provided me with no incentive to be a part of the project thus far.
Alex
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
Responding to some other points in this note
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:53, Pedro F. Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com> wrote:
>
> I recall someone (maybe you) had said that the
> ODFAuthors wanted to keep independent. If they
> want to join the podling they are welcome.
Sure. Each person can choose whether to join AOOo or not.
>
> There are some things which I think we should consider:
>
> 1) Many things are about to change, in particular when
> the new UI from Symphony is adopted, so we will have
> to do a lot of updating and new documentation anyways.
> Obviously all new documentation must be in a license
> acceptable to the Apache Foundation.
No argument there, though I believe CC-BY is acceptable, just not as
part of the docs that are shipped with the product.
>
> 2) infra@ is not complaining, but the fact the person
> doing the MW migration will leave is an issue. We should
> be considerate with the limited resources: is there a
> technical reason for not using confluence for all new
> documentation?
That's a different issue, whether docs should be in wiki format or in
ODT/PDF format that can be downloaded from the wiki or whatever. The
existing, most up to date user guides are in ODT/PDF, not wiki format.
The wiki is only a delivery mechanism. The docs could just as well be
delivered through the confluence wiki. But see another thread about
preserving the MediaWiki wiki and not the confluence wiki.
>
> 3) The license issue is really important. under all
> circumstances documentation without an acceptable
> copyright must be contained. In particular, the
> confluence wiki must be kept clean.
>
> I think the logical plan would be to either find a new
> home for the MW documentation or migrate what we can
> into a new project.
Yes, there is the possibility of apache-extras for the user guides, at
least for the short term.
>>
>> That would be only a few scattered chapters, because so
>> many people have worked on the docs over the years. And
>> it only takes one person to say no, I don't agree to
>> changing the license, and the chapter is
>> contaminated.
>>
>
> I am afraid we must still do this. Perhaps it's easier
> to find the people that oppose .. Can we legally make
> a call to everyone that opposes the change to speak up
> before a certain deadline?
I don't know if that would be legal, but even if it is, I think it
would be very difficult to do that in a fair way. Where are you going
to make this call? On a mailing list that many early contributors no
longer subscribe to? On a website that they don't visit any more?
>
> We would probably have to deprecate the documentation
> that we can't assimilate anyways (yes resistance is
> futile).
Sure, that is to be expected. Or it can be on apache-extras.
--Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
On 9/5/2011 22:57, Jean Weber wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:53, Pedro F. Giffuni<gi...@tutopia.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jean;
>>
>> Continuing on the topic of my general ignorance ...
>>
>> --- On Mon, 9/5/11, Jean Weber<je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> It's not clear to me that the user guides produced by
>>> ODFAuthors are in fact "official documentation" even
>>> though they are made available as ODT and PDF through
>>> the OOo wiki.
>>>
>>
>> We are talking about the same documents here?
>>
>> http://documentation.openoffice.org/
>
> That page is just a portal; most of its links point to the wiki. The
> user guides I am talking about are on the wiki, linked from this page
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation
>
> Here is an example of the user guides download pages
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
>
> You will notice at the bottom "Content on this page is licensed under
> the Creative Common Attribution 3.0 license (CC-BY)" as on each of the
> pages of the wikified content.
>
> Although the wiki pages carry the Oracle logo, the user guides
> themselves do not. Like many of the wiki pages, the docs have
> different licenses. Some docs (Admin Guide, for example) are Oracle
> docs and have a PDL license notice.
>
> --Jean
>
Just to clarify, we are talking about two different sets of docs. The
following have the wiki as their primary source:
Admin Guide
Basic Guide
Building Guide
Developers Guide
These presumably belong to Sun/Oracle/Apache. Where and in what form
they will eventually reside is still open, AFAIK.
All of the "module" users guides (Calc, Draw, Impress, Math, Writer –
and Base, eventually) may reside on the wiki in various forms and
versions (or at least the files reside on the wiki server), but they
come from ODFA.
--
/tj/
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>.
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:57:50 +1000, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:53, Pedro F. Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>
> wrote:
...
>>>
>>
>> We are talking about the same documents here?
>>
>> http://documentation.openoffice.org/
>
> That page is just a portal; most of its links point to the wiki. The
> user guides I am talking about are on the wiki, linked from this page
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation
>
> Here is an example of the user guides download pages
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
>
> You will notice at the bottom "Content on this page is licensed under
> the Creative Common Attribution 3.0 license (CC-BY)" as on each of
> the
> pages of the wikified content.
>
> Although the wiki pages carry the Oracle logo, the user guides
> themselves do not. Like many of the wiki pages, the docs have
> different licenses. Some docs (Admin Guide, for example) are Oracle
> docs and have a PDL license notice.
>
Thanks! After looking at the docs I have a better understanding
Of the issues now, and some of what I wrote before makes no
sense now.
I think ODFauthors are doing an awesome job and they should
Encourage them to continue. Hopefully their new documents can
be made compatible with our requirements but it's them ultimately
who have to set the pace. Linking to their docs seems they way
to go.
Pedro.
> --Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:53, Pedro F. Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com> wrote:
> Hi Jean;
>
> Continuing on the topic of my general ignorance ...
>
> --- On Mon, 9/5/11, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>
>> It's not clear to me that the user guides produced by
>> ODFAuthors are in fact "official documentation" even
>> though they are made available as ODT and PDF through
>> the OOo wiki.
>>
>
> We are talking about the same documents here?
>
> http://documentation.openoffice.org/
That page is just a portal; most of its links point to the wiki. The
user guides I am talking about are on the wiki, linked from this page
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation
Here is an example of the user guides download pages
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/OOo3.3_User_Guide_Chapters
You will notice at the bottom "Content on this page is licensed under
the Creative Common Attribution 3.0 license (CC-BY)" as on each of the
pages of the wikified content.
Although the wiki pages carry the Oracle logo, the user guides
themselves do not. Like many of the wiki pages, the docs have
different licenses. Some docs (Admin Guide, for example) are Oracle
docs and have a PDL license notice.
--Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
Hi Jean;
Continuing on the topic of my general ignorance ...
--- On Mon, 9/5/11, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>
> It's not clear to me that the user guides produced by
> ODFAuthors are in fact "official documentation" even
> though they are made available as ODT and PDF through
> the OOo wiki.
>
We are talking about the same documents here?
http://documentation.openoffice.org/
Those carry the "Oracle" logo or in older versions the
"Sun" Logos.
Assuming we host the documentation it would have to be
done the "Apache Way" which would mean that the authors
would be really inside the project. If this is so, I
think it would be nice and we should consider it
"official documentation".
I recall someone (maybe you) had said that the
ODFAuthors wanted to keep independent. If they
want to join the podling they are welcome.
There are some things which I think we should consider:
1) Many things are about to change, in particular when
the new UI from Symphony is adopted, so we will have
to do a lot of updating and new documentation anyways.
Obviously all new documentation must be in a license
acceptable to the Apache Foundation.
2) infra@ is not complaining, but the fact the person
doing the MW migration will leave is an issue. We should
be considerate with the limited resources: is there a
technical reason for not using confluence for all new
documentation?
3) The license issue is really important. under all
circumstances documentation without an acceptable
copyright must be contained. In particular, the
confluence wiki must be kept clean.
I think the logical plan would be to either find a new
home for the MW documentation or migrate what we can
into a new project.
>
> That would be only a few scattered chapters, because so
> many people have worked on the docs over the years. And
> it only takes one person to say no, I don't agree to
> changing the license, and the chapter is
> contaminated.
>
I am afraid we must still do this. Perhaps it's easier
to find the people that oppose .. Can we legally make
a call to everyone that opposes the change to speak up
before a certain deadline?
We would probably have to deprecate the documentation
that we can't assimilate anyways (yes resistance is
futile).
Pedro.
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 01:27, Pedro F. Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com> wrote:
>>
>> We have established that relicensing the existing OOo user
>> guides (which are licensed CC-BY) to the Apache license
>> is not practical.
>> Does this mean, as Rob has suggested, that these guides
>> *cannot* be part of the "official" documentation for AOOo
>> or only *should not* be part of that doco?
>>
> Please excuse my ignorance ...
>
> If I understand well:
>
> Despite owning the domain and the servers, the official
> documentation is not owned by Sun/Oracle (otherwise it
> could be relicensed).
It's not clear to me that the user guides produced by ODFAuthors are
in fact "official documentation" even though they are made available
as ODT and PDF through the OOo wiki.
>
> The problem has some similarities with situation in the
> forums. It's a transition process.. we have to live with
> the ASF rules but there is a status quo that is doing
> fine and we don't want to disrupt them.
>
> I would think for now we can keep them running
> in the Wikimedia VM that was made for that but we
> will have to make some transition plan: contact the
> authors that can be contacted (no spiritism, please ;) ),
> and transfer the documentation that is "copyright clean"
> to the confluence wiki.
That would be only a few scattered chapters, because so many people
have worked on the docs over the years. And it only takes one person
to say no, I don't agree to changing the license, and the chapter is
contaminated.
--Jean
Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
--- On Mon, 9/5/11, Jean Weber <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>
> We have established that relicensing the existing OOo user
> guides (which are licensed CC-BY) to the Apache license
> is not practical.
> Does this mean, as Rob has suggested, that these guides
> *cannot* be part of the "official" documentation for AOOo
> or only *should not* be part of that doco?
>
Please excuse my ignorance ...
If I understand well:
Despite owning the domain and the servers, the official
documentation is not owned by Sun/Oracle (otherwise it
could be relicensed).
The problem has some similarities with situation in the
forums. It's a transition process.. we have to live with
the ASF rules but there is a status quo that is doing
fine and we don't want to disrupt them.
I would think for now we can keep them running
in the Wikimedia VM that was made for that but we
will have to make some transition plan: contact the
authors that can be contacted (no spiritism, please ;) ),
and transfer the documentation that is "copyright clean"
to the confluence wiki.
cheers,
Pedro.
> I think Rob's suggestions for "boldly going where OOo Docs
> have not
> gone before" are good ones, but they won't happen
> immediately. In the
> short term (for the next release of the software), we are
> most likely
> to have a choice between updated CC-BY-licensed user
> guides, or no
> user guides at all.
>
> What should I tell the small group that remains from the
> ODFAuthors
> team that has been working on the user guides?
>
> --Jean
>
>