incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pedro F. Giffuni" <>
Subject Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2011 01:53:09 GMT
Hi Jean;

Continuing on the topic of my general ignorance ...

--- On Mon, 9/5/11, Jean Weber <> wrote:
> It's not clear to me that the user guides produced by
> ODFAuthors are in fact "official documentation" even
> though they are made available as ODT and PDF through
> the OOo wiki.

We are talking about the same documents here?

Those carry the "Oracle" logo or in older versions the
"Sun" Logos.

Assuming we host the documentation it would have to be
done the "Apache Way" which would mean that the authors
would be really inside the project. If this is so, I
think it would be nice and we should consider it
"official documentation".

I recall someone (maybe you) had said that the
ODFAuthors wanted to keep independent. If they
want to join the podling they are welcome.

There are some things which I think we should consider:

1) Many things are about to change, in particular when
the new UI from Symphony is adopted, so we will have
to do a lot of updating and new documentation anyways.
Obviously all new documentation must be in a license
acceptable to the Apache Foundation.

2) infra@ is not complaining, but the fact the person
doing the MW migration will leave is an issue. We should
be considerate with the limited resources: is there a
technical reason for not using confluence for all new

3) The license issue is really important. under all
circumstances documentation without an acceptable
copyright must be contained. In particular, the
confluence wiki must be kept clean. 

I think the logical plan would be to either find a new
home for the MW documentation or migrate what we can
into a new project.

> That would be only a few scattered chapters, because so
> many people have worked on the docs over the years. And
> it only takes one person to say no, I don't agree to
> changing the license, and the chapter is
> contaminated.

I am afraid we must still do this. Perhaps it's easier
to find the people that oppose .. Can we legally make
a call to everyone that opposes the change to speak up
before a certain deadline?

We would probably have to deprecate the documentation
that we can't assimilate anyways (yes resistance is


View raw message