gnu-arch-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] documentation and licensing


From: Andy Tai
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] documentation and licensing
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:12:12 -0800

some comments on Tom's message:

On 1/18/06, Thomas Lord <address@hidden> wrote:

I'll mostly skip the "GFDL: yes or no?" question. 

OK, we use the GPL for documentation.

Suggestions:

1) Yes, use the GPL.

2) No, do not use TeXinfo or Docbook -- go for ASCII-art, Wiki-style
   A lot of very important uses cases for this documentation
   involve dealing directly with the source. 

Tom, a stable stand-along release of awiki with a simple tutorial would be great!

3) Somebody make a plan.
 
4) If there is demand for a printed form....

In the current situation, I think there may not be much demand for documentation in print...

Ok, so, the warning:

Arch is in a tough, awkward spot.   I don't think anyone would argue
that it should remain frozen with the current implementation or UI.

b) A few people (not just me) integrating all the lessons we've learned
   from Arch, git, Subversion, Darcs, monotone, etc. to make arch 2.0 .
   We have all the pieces and know-how on the table.  

Tom, I think  the current Arch 2.0 still needs more  documentation and maybe more functionality before third parties can productively jump in...   and the best person to push it forward at this stage is still you.  I don't know if you have the time to push Arch 2.0 further, but that seem to be the best thing which can happen.  I am willing to provide some (but not much, since just one person's) financial help, as you know.

I wonder if there are ways to fund this GNU Arch 2.0 project as some type of research or small business grant (in the state of California) or something.  Does anyone know?  (also, are there international opportunities, like the EU, for supporting Arch 2.0 development)

(The FSF itself is not the ideal agency to provide such funding; if it has extra funds I would like to see that goes to the Hurd first)

Suppose (b) were on the map.   That would impact the documentation
project in a big way.  Arch 1.x would have a distinctly finite
lifetime.   The main push would be to get 2.0 on-line.   It's not
at all clear that documentation written for 1.x would be all that
useful for 2.0.

Absent 2.0 I think it likely that Arch will die.   Some ideas will
live on in other projects and other ideas will be reinvented in
other projects.   It's hard for me to guess how quickly or slowly
that takes place so it's hard for me to form an opinion about how
worth it it is to work on 1.x docs.

-t


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]