incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean Weber <jeanwe...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Status of existing OOo user guides
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:18:50 GMT
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 23:02, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Wearing my IBM hat, the larger issue, one that may not concern
> everyone here but does concern me, is the impact the license choice
> has on our ability to attract corporate-sponsored contributors to an
> effort that is not using a compatible license,  By analogy to the
> project source code,under Apache 2.0, it is very easy for IBM
> developers to contribute patches, etc., to that code.  We contribute
> and know that we improve the product as well as preserve our ability
> to bring that code, with our fixes and other's fixes as well, and
> include that in Symphony releases.  Once we start mixing copyleft
> components into the mix, even documentation components, we make it
> much more difficult for risk-averse corporations to contribute.
>
> So this is a matter of "help me help you".  If we can move to a
> permissive/compatible license for future documentation work, then I
> can seek contributions of Symphony-related documentations, quick
> starts, as well help with existing doc.  (In fact I've already started
> that discussion internally at IBM, with favorable feedback).  Having a
> compatible license helps align our interests.
>

Given the lack of interest so far at ODFAuthors, I'm now thinking that
not attempting to reuse the existing user guides may be the way to go.
Start over with Symphony-related docs, using a new team of techwriters
(with IBM-sponsored people as the core) and just get on with it. Save
a lot of hassle.

I'm fairly sure that whatever route AOOo chooses to take, I won't be
interested in being part of it. I had no real idea of what would be
involved here (I suspect few of us did) and now realise that it's
probably just not my thing.

--Jean

Mime
View raw message