db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <rick.hille...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: Copyright clairification for fo2html.xsl in Derby software.
Date Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:31:27 GMT
On 1/10/12 7:11 AM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Rick Hillegas<rick.hillegas@oracle.com>  wrote:
>> On 1/9/12 4:36 PM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Andrew McIntyre<mcintyre.a@gmail.com>
>>>   wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Jean T. Anderson<jtanderson@fastmail.fm>
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>> I did some checking and that file has been in the subversion respository
>>>>> since April 2005, added in revision 161353 with the log message "Add
>>>>> single
>>>>> page HTML output to derby doc build." -- in other words, ever since we
>>>>> started using DITA to build the docs, so I expect it to be in all
>>>>> distributions starting with 10.1. I'll check with Andrew next week to
>>>>> see if
>>>>> he remembers more of the story around this file. Or maybe one of the
>>>>> other
>>>>> committers on this list who have tweaked this file can comment?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the meantime, while we untangle the story to all our satisfaction,
>>>>> anyone
>>>>> who further distributes the derby product should, of course, follow the
>>>>> advice of their lawyer. If there's any concern about this file, then
one
>>>>> option would be to omit the single book HTML file from your distribution
>>>>> --
>>>>> perhaps just include the PDF file or link to the single book HTML file
>>>>> on
>>>>> the apache site.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>   -jean
>>>> Hi Jean,
>>>>
>>>> We had been using this file to generate single-page HTML documentation
>>>> for test and review during the DITA conversion since before the docs
>>>> were contributed to Apache. I checked it in when I was moving the doc
>>>> build machinery into Subversion. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't
>>>> have checked it in, but when someone went to modify it is when we had
>>>> the original discussion. There should at least be an entry for it in
>>>> the doc-src NOTICES. I can remove the file if it's a problem though,
>>>> as the file could be downloaded directly to the release builder's
>>>> machine by Ant. Also, there are other, free options for converting
>>>> PDFs to HTML files.
>>>>
>>>> - andrew
>>> I think we should probably get rid of this file, and we should really
>>> avoid using it altogether. Is there anyone who has the skill to
>>> replace this file?
>>>
>>> Myrna
>>>
>> I ran a quick experiment: I removed fo2html.xsl and verified that I could
>> build the frames html docs. Here are some solutions listed in declining
>> order of effort:
>>
>> 1) Remove fo2html.xsl.
>>
>> + Easy.
>> - We will lose the no-frames version of the html docs. I do use the
>> no-frames version when citing doc passages in posts to derby-user. That is
>> my only use for the no-frames version. Passage citations would be a little
>> more cumbersome, but I could live with that.
>>
>> 2) Track down Nikolai Grigoriev and get him to open source this file under
>> Apache 2.0.
>>
>> + Preserves the no-frames version of the docs.
>> + Relatively low effort on our part.
>> - Unbounded problem. We're not certain that we can track him down or that he
>> would agree to use the Apache 2.0 license.
>>
>> 3) Replace fo2html.xsl with an xsl transformation which we write ourselves.
>>
>> + Preserves the no-frames version of the docs.
>> - Probably outside the current skill sets of our current contributors.
>>
>> 4) Convert the docs to another source format.
>>
>> + Would be an opportunity to address our dissatisfactions with DITA,
>> including its accessibility problems and our inability to generate a doc
>> index.
>> - Big effort.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Rick
> Quick question/comment re 2): Nikolai Grigoriev is listed as author
> but isn't the copyright by renderX? Daniel Dobbins said he tried to
> contact the author without result, perhaps he didn't try the
> company...But - I am not a lawyer.
> I prefer option 4 but have no time/skill, so for short term 1.
>
> Myrna
>
Right, you noticed this and Knut noticed this. In the meantime, I 
noticed it too and I have started an email conversation with RenderX 
about the possibility of their licensing the file under Apache 2.0. Stay 
tuned...

Thanks,
-Rick

Mime
View raw message