Hi,
Tom Cook wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Juha-P Lindfors wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Ole Husgaard wrote:
> > > Really hope I am misunderstanding
> > > something here.
> >
> > You are. The documentation in all of its forms is available in the
> > CVS. You're free to co and build it. The CVS includes all parts of the
> > documentation.
>
> So why no bundled HTML download?
I think that this may be a bit stupid:
When the zipped docs are not available,
what are people that want HTML docs to
be available locally going to do?
They simply use a recursive web
mirroring tool, generating about three
times as much traffic as downloading a
zip would.
With GNU wget, mirroring the docs from
the jboss site is a one-line command.
That is a lot easier than checking out
from CVS, if you are not a programmer.
The question still remains: Is the
documentation free (as in freedom)?
And if the documentation is not free,
who owns it?
In more general terms, I think it is
worth thinking about this question:
How much do we want to hinder access
to (and use of) JBoss in order to
avoid competing with commercial
subprojects?
For example, if a commercial entity
starts selling JBoss binaries, should
we stop distributing JBoss binaries?
What would the impact be, if we start
telling potential users that they have
to either pay for a binary, or learn
how to check out from CVS and compile
Java code?
Tricky questions that IMHO deserve
serious consideration and public
discussion.
But it seems to me that the decision
of forbidding the distribution of
a zipped HTML manual was made behind
closed doors. I saw no announcement
of such a decision, only a CVS removal
of the zip file.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
