Am 30.04.2017 um 11:39 schrieb C R: > > > I also think this is not the same as a manual, which should be quick to > browse, quick to grasp, with lots of interlinks, with a file format > suitable for version control (well, yes, Scribus is xml, I've been told, > so it would be /readable/ - but those diffs are really ugly), with > out-of-the-box automated generation of online versions of a manual - as > can be done with tools like sphinx/readthedocs, doctype, and other tools > > > Martin and I are thinking gitlab + markdown will suffice for the basis > of contribution, and we can worry about scribus and doc publishing later. >
- This sounds to me like it would be duplicating work, when automated systems exist, but aren't used from the start. > > Also, it would be good if things like the keyboard+mouse reference and > other stuff we already have could be included. > > > Probably should use markdown code to identify key shortcuts in plain > text. Makes them easier to edit, diff, and provides an easy way to add > new ones. - Yes, but we could copy the structure and contents, which are both good. I certainly don't know all the shortcuts by heart. And there are many that aren't listed in the keys.xml file. > Also, crediting people for their work is just > something that makes them more willing to contribute (as stated above). > CC-By would lose that, after the first iteration, as far as my > understanding of the licence goes. > > > We get into the territory of having to edit each and every diagram or > screen capture. It's messy. I think a better credit would be to have a > contributor page for those who contribute the most. If that's > insufficient credit, I think people might be contributing for the wrong > reasons. > - I fully agree that a general 'Credits' page would be sufficient. The Inkscape website contents is dual licenced, too. And we do not have individual credits for each page, word, image, link or whatever. It would be very difficult to do that anyway. Do you think that poses a problem? If someone wants to know specifically, a git blame would be sufficient to find out (this wouldn't work for the website's CMS, though)... > Some of the people involved in flossmanualsfr are also long-time > contributors to and developers of Inkscape, so that's the relation. > > > But you see how the licensing gets in the way? We can't use any of it > now. People wanted credit more than they wanted to have the contents be > reusable. GPL is for software. People try to rewrite for content, but > that's not what it's for. Worse, it imposes more restrictions than CC-BY. - We could, if we used GPL... It doesn't prevent translation or modification. And we can ask, as Martin suggested. > I think it's best to say something like: "Unless otherwise stated, all > content in this book is CC0, Public Domain." Then, those who require > attribution can include it in the caption below the graphics. - That's certainly possible. However, I wouldn't contribute text or proofreading or maintenance help under these circumstances. There are many things that I have published as CC0 (Public Domain is impossible in Germany, because there are certain moral rights, such as 'authorship' that one cannot give up, even if one wanted to). But a manual that is made for an open source, copyleft software should fit the philosophy, in my opinion. I care about attributing work to the people who did it, and I don't want that someone who comes along to grab what they did can just deprive them of it. Regards, Maren ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-docs mailing list Inkscape-docs@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-docs
