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.
We discussed this and thought that since the output format will be many different things, the easiest way is to take contributions in the simplest form. Markdown is easy enough for anyone to understand right away, and is free of formatting, etc, which can be added later, either via automation, or by hand.
It's not really duplicating work, it's just keeping the content separate from the formatting. the formatting should be done by designers anyway. Having every user try and style pages will probably make a mess.
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.
Content contributors should not have to worry about the structure, just the content. Those in charge of formatting will be able to see directly from what's already in the manual how formatting works, and we can provide a cheat-sheet for starters. For each output, web, pdf, epub, etc, there are different formatting requirements. It's not really possible to do them all at once, which is why it's in our best interest to keep the master content as simple as possible.
- 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 the document contains the disclaimer "unless otherwise stated), it leaves us pretty free to do whatever we like, as long as the content contributed is owned by the contributors. For example, the Inkscape splash screen could be CC-BY-SA, and as long as we say that in the graphic somewhere, along with the author, it's fine. That's for full-page graphics, probably more for aesthetics rather than just tutorials. People who want credit for every diagram or screen capture... I mean do these people even exist? I doubt it. This is not a publication that's meant to show off people's Inkscape art as a primary goal. We could do a separate coffee-table book with that. This is the official manual for Inkscape. I think it's unnecessary to require credit for most graphics that will be included in this manual. It's going to look silly at the best, and cluttered and distracting at worst to list attribution for every bit. I think requiring most instructional graphics submitted be CC0 as a rule. We can make exceptions for really nice full-page artwork used for aesthetic purposes
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)...
Most developers do not contribute to Inkscape for credit. I do not think it's asking too much of the docs team to also have this same attitude.
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 recommend against using GPL for this document. It really isn't meant for content of this type. Rewording the GPL to try and make it fit content of this type is just asking for trouble, and will mean that the contents will only be usable by others willing to continue the inadvisable tradition of trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
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.
The only way that would happen is if the project stopped using the documentation. The plan is to use it all over the place, so I have no idea how nefarious parties, which for some reason are interested in copying Inkscape's manual, modifying it, and claiming credit for it... would do anything except make the people who did it look foolish. cc0 and public domain does not contradict the philosophy of copyleft or FLOSS. It just makes the contents usable in anything else, and I want people to use my contributions without having to worry about licensing restrictions.
If credit within the project, and for all users of Inkscape that read the manual from our repo isn't enough then... well whatever. :) Don't know what fame and fortune people are expecting from this. It's just a manual.
-C
On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Maren Hachmann <maren@...3165...> wrote:
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 toolsMartin 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