Direction of the Ubuntu system docs

Sun Dec 19 22:31:48 UTC 2010

Hiyas phil,

I am horrified at

  * Canonical are now asking for people to sign a copyright
>        assignment agreement before contributing to Canonical-maintained
>        apps. Practically, I think this means that they won't accept
>        patches to packages if the patch author hasn't signed this
>        agreement. It essentially transfers ownership of a copyrighted
>        contribution to Canonical, and then grants you a broad
>        usage/distribution license back
>

The whole idea of gpl (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html) was no
assignable rights, we are NOT MicroSoft. Were Canonical to follow this issue
they will loose so, so many people. It horrifies me. I'd like to put my
feelings on the matter into simple words, but as these emails may be read by
minors.... let me just say "they can go forth an multiply".

The other matters are less important, this is a no go situation, either they
back down or you will loose so many people. I cannot believe which idiot
thought up the idea? FOS <> $MS

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Regards,

Phill.

On 19 December 2010 22:06, Phil Bull <philbull at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> We have the following bug report open, requesting documentation for
> Unity:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/600875
>
> In light of this, I think it's time we discussed the direction of the
> Ubuntu system docs. The package is becoming outdated - we've mostly been
> in maintenance mode for the last few release cycles, and even that's
> only due to the hard work and dedication of a couple of people. There
> are a number of changes in Ubuntu and related projects that we're going
> to have to adapt to and make some decisions about if we're to stay
> relevant:
>
>      * GNOME apps are switching to Mallard-based help, whereas we're
>        using DocBook. In particular, the new GNOME Desktop Help is
>        being written in Mallard and will have integration points for
>        distros built into it. Mallard support in Yelp is also looking
>        very good. If we stick with DocBook, we won't be able to take
>        full advantage of this stuff. I hasten to add that staying with
>        DocBook is a viable option - we can still link to the new GNOME
>        stuff, and Yelp still supports DocBook - but we'll be missing
>        out on some niceties that I think would really benefit us. (N.B.
>        I'm biased; I'm a member of the GNOME Docs Team.)
>      * Ubuntu will default to Unity rather than the GNOME 2.x or GNOME
>        3.x shells as of the Natty release. It will apparently fall back
>        to the GNOME 2.x shell if a computer doesn't have sufficient
>        graphics support for Unity. We will be in the position where we
>        need to support at least two shells, and the general desktop
>        documentation (from GNOME) will be written under the assumption
>        of another shell that we don't support. This is complicated
>        because the shell the user is using defines basic interactions
>        like starting an app, accessing files and settings, and even
>        where the window controls are placed (Unity has a Mac OS X-like
>        detached window menubar). I can think of ways of handling this,
>        but it's a *lot* of work, and the most elegant solution (in my
>        opinion) would require us to switch to Mallard.
>      * The Ubuntu Manual project appears to be struggling [1]. This has
>        been the most publicised Ubuntu user assistance effort for the
>        past few releases and, though not an Ubuntu Docs project, it
>        does overlap with what we are doing. Having two teams working on
>        related projects, with both of them struggling for contributors,
>        seems senseless.
>      * Canonical are now asking for people to sign a copyright
>        assignment agreement before contributing to Canonical-maintained
>        apps. Practically, I think this means that they won't accept
>        patches to packages if the patch author hasn't signed this
>        agreement. It essentially transfers ownership of a copyrighted
>        contribution to Canonical, and then grants you a broad
>        usage/distribution license back. Personally, I am not
>        comfortable with this sort of agreement, for a number of
>        reasons. Others are likely to feel different. I've highlighted
>        it because it could affect where we decide to maintain our
>        documentation; if we put it in the Unity package, for example,
>        it has to be covered by this agreement.
>
> Given these changes, what do people think we should be doing with the
> ubuntu-docs package? At the moment, we have some "getting started"
> material, links to some general desktop documentation, overviews of
> application installation and common applications, and a bit of hardware
> troubleshooting. This is similar to what the Ubuntu Manual does, but in
> a different format/writing style. We don't really have any installation
> material either (mostly because I keep failing to work on it).
>
> There are lots of directions we could go in, so I'm interested to hear
> what people think.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil
>
> [1] -
> http://itigloo.com/2010/12/13/ubuntu-manual-project-progressing-slowly/
> [2] - http://www.canonical.com/contributors
>
> --
> Phil Bull
> https://launchpad.net/~philbull <https://launchpad.net/%7Ephilbull>
> Book - http://nostarch.com/ubuntu4.htm
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-doc mailing list
> ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20101219/a3598cde/attachment.html>