openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <apa...@robweir.com>
Subject Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding)
Date Tue, 02 Aug 2011 01:24:00 GMT
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Jean Hollis Weber <jeanweber@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 20:45 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I can certainly see the value of a community wiki that anyone can
>> edit.  Can you see the value of a documentation wiki that has
>> controlled access and ensures that everything is under a single
>> permissive license? I think we need both.
>
> I think we are running into a similar problem here to one we discussed
> earlier, before Terry joined the list.
>
> That is the distinction between *user* documentation and *project*
> documentation. The former, including ALL of the existing user guides,
> are effectively "community documentation" at this time. But I think you
> are talking about *project* documentation, the developer-related stuff.
>

No, that's not the distinction I was making.  Would you say that the
code that the users touch, like the user interface, should be open for
anyone to modify?  But the UNO API code should only be writable by
developers? I don't think so.

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.

Otherwise we create some frankenlicensed product, with parts under
Apache 2.0, which in theory can be freely modified and reused, but
with other essential components, like documentation and translations,
in assorted other licenses.  A key thing about what makes an Apace
project Apache, is that it is under the Apache 2.0 license.

> I certainly agree that *project* documentation should go on a controlled
> wiki, but I think that *user* docs should go on a community wiki.
>
> --Jean
>
>

Mime
View raw message