Re: GDP Handbook

["David C. Mason" <dcm redhat com>]

Telsa Gwynne <hobbit@aloss.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

> >    [The gdp document should have a version number.]
> 
> I agree. What about this be the revhistory stuff? I was playing with that
> on something else, and it can get long very easily. But it's there.

Done - look in the handbook at <revhistory> - it shows up in the
latest dsssl too.



> 
> > o    I think that there should be a date for each document --- so that you 
> > can identify how old a particular version is. 
> >
> >    [The gdp document should have a (fine-grained) date --- especially if 
> > it's subject to (hopefully) rapid evolution. Basically, if the document 
> > is >6 months older than the software then that gives an indication of its 
> > relevance, etc., bug-fixes, outstanding items, etc.]

Again done - this is part of revhistory. I don't think adding 'last
updated' is terribly necessary. Plus it would take a bit more dsssl
work to get done as the date is part of revhistory and displayed by
the dsssl.
> 
> > o    I note the (c) statement, etc., but there is no statement as to the
> > licensing regime that the document is under (if any) --- e.g. public domain,
> > LDP, GPL, LGPL?
> >    [The gdp document and all other GNOME documents should have a clear
> > reference to its terms and conditions, etc., etc.]
> 
> There seems to be an unspoken "GPL your doc" hint, largely because
> practically every example I've found is GPL'd. Question for the applet
> handbook: is the whole thing to go under one licence, or can people
> pick different licences for their different contributions? I'm happy
> with GPL personally, but people differ: I also like the Open Content
> one, and GNU are preparing a GNU documentation licence, too. GNOME
> is the GNU network whatever it is, so I assume that GNUy licences 
> make sense :)
> 
> > o    Each GNOME document should fall under a license TBD, referenced /
> > included in the document itself.
> 
> TBD? To be determined, or..?


OK this is a real issue that I blame RMS for. I got a note from the
FSF some time ago about using the GPL for the User's Guide and how
wrong it was, etc. Well it s the closest thing I could come up with
that was part of the GNU project - remember we *are* a GNU project.

I told RMS that until this mysterious docs license comes out (that was
supposed to be out long ago) I would stick to the GPL whether he liked
it or not. It was a threat that was meant to put a spark under their
arses - it hasn't.

It is still my stance though and I don't think we should use any other
licenses until we get a docs license from the FSF.


I'll stop there.

Dave

-- 

          David Mason
        Red Hat AD Labs

        dcm@redhat.com