Revdocs on a wiki

[David Bovill]

On 28 Oct 2005, at 17:31, Dennis Brown wrote:

> Now that RunRev has committed to create and maintain a Rev Docs  
> Wiki, I think all our efforts should be funneled into giving them  
> our full support for this.  I would certainly want them to get all  
> the good input available from this list.

Yes - it would be super (as they say in German out here).

However I for one would not really want to contribute to a  
copyrighted company documentation project without being paid - only  
if the material was released under an Creative Commons style license  
which others could use as freely as i gave it. This is less of an  
issue for me for documentation of the Rev IDE - however for community  
contributions or commercial plugins from other companies within the  
community?

Even more to the point is the sharing of code resources -. controls,  
groups, libraries and individual handlers. In other words RunRev  
needs to sort out a proper open content policy for not only  
documentation, but code, icons - whatever. A public statement of  
intent along these lines would be warmly welcomed, I am sure, and  
would shut a lot of people up :)

Without this - I would have to assume they still have a lot of  
thinking to do and figure out how this gels with their existing  
business plans - that sort of discussion can take months and is  
easily dropped amidst other business priorities.


So RunRev:

     - What is your official position on supporting open source or  
public domain content on or off your servers?

     - Are these contributions to be made accessible from within the  
RunRev IDE?

     - What parts or extensions to the IDE, the services, or the  
documentation you provide are to be under open licenses?

     - If high quality user created contributions - lets say  
documentation - comes forward under an open license - how do you plan  
to release it or integrate it with your existing documentation  
without breaking the terms of the license?

     - Do you wish to recommend that the community uses public domain  
style licences - some may object? Or would you prefer a dual  
licensing strategy allowing you to include this material within a  
commercial product?


Here's hoping.