Re: License problem in Ubuntu Desktop Guide (Re: Incorporating

[Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt myrealbox com>]

On Sep 6, 2006, at 9:04 PM, Joachim Noreiko wrote:
> ...
> 1a. Ubuntu Desktop Guide covers things that we can't. Eg installing 
> packages, using ubuntu with a dual boot system, getting MP3s to play, 
> getting hardware to work.  We can't cover those because of this whole
> linux/gnome/distro stack business, which, if you read slashdot, is 
> *apparently* a strength of free software. meh.

So it would be really really cool if the Gnome help assumed that
(a) people using Gnome are using an operating system based on Gnome, and

> 1b. Ubuntu Desktop Guide has a more "get started" approach. Eg 'how do 
> I play my music?', 'how do I print stuff?', 'how do I get onto the 
> internet?' See here for example:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/2006-August/006986.html
> This is stuff we could have in the user guide, but probably not to the 
> depth Ubuntu covers it.

(b) people browsing help are looking for answers to questions (a
    relative strength of the Ubuntu Desktop Guide), not in "manuals" or
    "guides" as such.

> 2. Mallard would allow us to define a structure for a comprehensive 
> User Guide, leaving gaps for material from the Ubuntu docs to slot in.

That would be very good (dare I say long overdue?), though it would put 
distributors under the gun for ensuring those gaps were always filled 
in. (We saw this in microcosm with yelp's "Try this search at ____" 
function; it makes much more sense if distributors customize it than if 
they don't.)

> ...
> But here's a 5th question: does Ubuntu's dual-licensing prevent 
> material from Ubuntu docs moving upstream and coming into our user 
> guide?

I think so, if GFDL-with-no-invariant-sections-or-cover-texts (Gnome) 
is close enough to ambiguous-GFDL (Ubuntu) to be considered "precisely 
this License" (GFDL section 4). The result would be GFDL, losing the 
CC-BY-SA from the Ubuntu Desktop Guide.

But while the GFDL might be reasonable for manuals, it's an *awful* 
license for help pages. It would require each new version of a page to 
have a distinct title (4.A, hence the ugly "GnomeApp Manual V2.8" 
titles Gnome has currently), a title page (4.B~C) containing a list of 
the authors (4.B), a copy of the GFDL itself (4.H), a changelog (4.I), 
and the URL of the page's source code (4.J). Completely unreasonable.

I don't say this as a defense of the CC-BY-SA, which has most of the 
same problems. But if we're going to start writing standalone help 
pages (something I'd be interested in), a merged Ubuntu Desktop Guide 
and Gnome User Guide probably isn't a legally useful starting point.

Cheers
--
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/