Direction of the Ubuntu system docs
Zach Kriesse
zkriesse at ubuntu.com
Sun Dec 19 23:08:09 UTC 2010
On 12/19/2010 4:31 PM, Phill Whiteside wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 The package is becoming outdated - we've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 <mailto:ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com>
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
>
>
I agree....I too am horrified Phillw and Phil, this is getting bad isn't
it...
--
Cheers!
~zkriesse
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20101219/c05d6e7d/attachment.html>
More information about the ubuntu-doc
mailing list