We can do both :) (and even combine them). I've been thinking we're exploring options. I'll make a suggestion shortly.
I only wish Nicolas or Elisa could be here to give us some more in-depth info about their server's capabilities and their book's licencing. Kind Regards, Maren Am 01.05.2017 um 07:07 schrieb brynn: > I'm confused -- I missed a step somewhere. > > Are we no longer talking about translating the French manual on FLOSS > Manuals? > > Or are you talking about something else entirely? > > Sorry to be so simple-minded. > > Thanks, > brynn > > -----Original Message----- From: C R > Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 3:39 AM > To: Maren Hachmann > Cc: Victor Westmann ; inkscape-devel ; Inkscape-Docs ; brynn > Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Any chance we can make some docs material? > (targeting the moon) > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > The NC licence is maybe a bit overprotective, but I'm all for crediting > and having a manual be available for anyone who needs it. > > Yes, let's not do NC. The point of this is to get it into as many hands > as possible. People want a bit of money to handle printing and > distribution, let them. It's less work for the project and more free > publicity. > > -C > > Maren > > Am 29.04.2017 um 21:22 schrieb C R: >> Also this: http://write.flossmanuals.net/inkscape/ >> >> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 8:04 PM, C R <caj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Books done in Scribus can be "published" in a variety of ways,.... >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, I understand that. But I thought Victor was talking about a >>>> hardback >>>> book, like at the link he provided. That kind of book is hard to get >>>> published, unless you have some prior agreement with a publisher. >>>> At least >>>> that's my understanding. >>> >>> We can self-publish, but we'd have to order a thousand copies, which >>> would take some startup funds. I don't think hardback would be >>> necessary. >>> In fact, I don't imagine printing is necessary. We could render out a >>> nice illustration of the book, with "ebook" under it, and people can >>> enjoy the aesthetic without downing a bunch of trees to make physical >>> copies of the manual. Virtual copies have great things like >>> hyperlinks, and text search capabilities. So there are more benefits >>> to having a digital copy anyway. >>> >>>> Somewhere in this thread was some discussion about licensing. If >>>> this is to >>>> be a hardback book (old fashioned way of publishing) *to me* it >>>> makes more >>>> sense to carry a copyright. >>> >>> The only requirement for a published physical book is an isbn number >>> (for product catalog, and inventory purposes). The license of the >>> book, as I understand it, is left completely open to the authors. We >>> would not have this published by a company interested in owning the >>> copyright, of course. >>> >>>> As far as I understand, publishers take a cut >>>> of sales. And if it's a public domain content, there wouldn't be many >>>> sales. It seems like it would make it even harder to find a publisher. >>> >>> A publisher isn't necessary for this project, assuming the content is >>> what's important. If we want book sales out of this, that's the point >>> where it will become an issue. >>> >>>> I don't know, maybe I'm old and old fashioned. But the FLOSS >>>> manual, on the >>>> other hand, certainly should be either public domain, or CC-BY-NC-SA >>>> might >>>> be better. Whatever it needs to have, to allow the community to edit. >>> >>> All I can guarantee is that my contributions will be public domain. :) >>> >>>> This is probably a bad idea. But I'm trying to think outside the >>>> box. What >>>> if I (or other non-French-speaker) took one of the French pages, and >>>> sent it >>>> through the public google and/or bing translators. I know those are >>>> far >>>> from perfect. (Sooooo far!) But since I know Inkscape, it seems >>>> like it >>>> would give me enough of a clue what it's about, to be able to write it >>>> properly in English. >>> >>> Well, translation plus proof-reading is fine I'd think. It's not like >>> the subject matter would be alien to you. :) Fact is, you could easily >>> re-write from scratch the missing sections in English, then we would >>> be able to use it in our own "official" Inkscape manual too. >>> >>>> Then maybe the translators can proof read it, to make sure something >>>> important wasn't missed? Proof reading would seem to be much less >>>> time-consuming for them. >>>> >>>> Would that work?? >>>> >>>> All best, >>>> brynn >>> >>> >>> As I understand it, the Inkscape Project has nothing to do with >>> flossmanuals, so perhaps it's beyond the scope of this project. >>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
