Folks,

For now I'm focused on getting this thing completed within the self-
imposed timeframe. That will include licensing in some base material.
Thanks for the QSG tip: I had not thought of that.

By the time its done the doc group will have finished their material
as well and most points raised so far will have become moot.

Paul

--- In Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com, Paul Vinkenoog <paul@...>
wrote:

>
> Hello Paul,
>
> >> ... but is there some special reason why you didn't make this a
> >> Firebird docs paper? Or, do you plan to?
>
> > Yes, there are such reasons:
> >
> > 1. At the last conference, the doc's project made it known that

they

> > were very close to releasing a full set of doc's. I assume this is
> > still the case and I don't want to intefere with that.
>
> That's right, we've been "close" fore some time now, but in the end
> things always take considerably longer than foreseen.
>
> I'm very glad that you produced this documentation, but it also
> painfully underlines the slowness of the doc project.
>
> No, let me rephrase that: precisely because the doc project is so
> understaffed, we should be grateful that someone "out there"

succeeds

> in putting up a good manual of his own.
>
> On a practical level, how do you want to license this documentation?
> At this moment the legal information link points to you general site
> license, which says "all rights reserved". If you want other doccers
> to be able to use your work, it would need to be placed in the

public

> domain or under an OS license (preferably PDL). Of course that's

your

> call: it's your work and we should all be grateful you did it, no
> matter whether you open-source it or not.
>
> Another practical issue: why spend time on writing a Getting Started
> Guide if we already have the Quick Start Guide? Everybody can pick

it

> up and put it on their site without prior permission.
>
> (The latest version shipped with RC4. A completely up-to-date

version

> will be available for Fb 2 final, or earlier.)
>
>
> > 2. The doc's project seems very keen on the docbook technology.
>
> That's correct, but we never refuse useful contributions just

because

> they are in the "wrong" format. We're not *that* stupid. We do try

to

> gently push contributors in the DocBook direction though, because of
> the huge advantages for publishing, maintainability, etc.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Paul Vinkenoog
>