[FM discuss] FM to be at wikimania

[adam hyde]

hey all,

It seems that, pending more comments, that we are tending towards a GPL
only repository. Anyone else wish to offer thoughts on this? 

As for Julians point about GPL2 vs GPL3...this discussion is really
getting heated on Linux lists with Linux Torvalds saying the kernel will
stay in GPL2 and the FSF commanding its followers to adopt GPL3...

The current FLOSS Manuals license text states
(eg :http://en.flossmanuals.net/Audacity/Credits)
"All chapters copyright of the authors (see below). Unless otherwise
stated all chapters in this manual licensed with GNU General Public
License version 2 

"This documentation is free documentation; you can redistribute it
and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version."

so, as we have it now the material is licensed under GPL2 _but_ if
someone wants to use it under GPL3 then they can ("either version 2 of
the License, or (at your option) any later version"). 

To me this is a pragmatic way of dealing with this as then any developer
can use the docs for inclusion in their source regardless of which side
of this debate they stand on...


> my only thought might be whether it'd be wise to come up with an agreed
> FM formatting convention: footnotes, typography and image sizes seem a
> little varied across the manuals. perhaps this isn't a problem, let alone 
> something to enforce. personally speaking, i tend to find continuity in 
> these areas give me - as a regular reader of technical documentation - 
> greater confidence in the material in general.

> if one of the objectives of FM is to provide printable documentation for
> purpose of redistribution and/or archiving, perhaps formatting is
> something to pay special attention to.

The question that you raise really gets to the heart of a deeper
question which I am sure will surface in different guises as we go. 

That is - what is the relationship between :
* peoples motivations to contribute
* our desire to ensure a high quality of material

In the situation Julian has raised, this general question could be seen
as a tension between the need to format manuals so people trust the
quality of the content, and encouraging peoples involvement as a
creative act. The more constraints put in place to ensure a particular
standard, the less creative room contributers have to manoeuvre.

Although motivation is not just about creativity, from research on why
people contribute to Wikipedia
(http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/Nov_Wikipedia_motivations_opensource.mit.edu.pdf) and the motives of floss developers (http://freesoftware.mit.edu/papers/lakhaniwolf.pdf), creativity, or a creative challenge, or a creative solution to a difficult problem, seems to rank high on the list of motivations. 

However people want to be involved in projects that are respected ie.
are of a high quality.

So...where is the line that we would draw on this issue? What do we
think motivates people to contribute, and how do we manage these
motivators alongside a desire to construct a quality resource?

adam


-- 
adam hyde
floss manuals

free manuals for free software
http://www.flossmanuals.net

mobile : + 31 6 154 22770 (Netherlands mobile)
email : adam at flossmanuals.net