[tex-live] Re: ConTeXt documentation in "commercial" products

[Hans Hagen]

Hi

>
>>Btw, context documentation is part of the tex collection but not of
>>tex live; the reason is that tex live only ships documentation for
>>which a source is avaliable (and since there is never the guarantee
>>that a source is complete, will run, has all graphic and font
>>resources with it, it means that this criterium is hard to meet,
>>i.e. what is a source: if i generate an html page from an xml file, it
>>has no source either). 
>>    
>>
>
>I don't think this is true, as Karl has already pointed out.
>  
>
if you make an inventory of pdf/dvi files in tex live you'll notice that 
many have no associated source code, so there is some 'delete job' to do 
there

>  
>
>>Technically this means that a pdf file like
>>mreadme.pdf will not be distributed. Afaik substantial context
>>documentation and samples (over 100 meg in pdf form) are no part of
>>linux distributions either. But i have absoutely no problems if the
>>manuals are distributed (as long as it does not cost me time).
>>    
>>
>
>Doesn't it cost you more time if people don't have the (up-to-date)
>documentation installed along with their TeX distribution, find some old
>version somewhere on the net and start asking stupid questions?
>  
>
nowadays most users consult the up to date wiki and from there look 
further; older distributions (i.e. sysadms not willing to update the 
system) is a bigger pain; also, most context users update on a regular 
basis (because they want to use the latest pdftex trickery or fonts or 
have asked for features) and again the wiki is then the place to find 
examples.

>  
>
>>Currently, context manuals are put (stepwise) under svn, and for
>>practical purposes it's done on one of our internal machines with a
>>copy on taco's website. However, there is no guarantee that each
>>document runs as intended (i.e. there are fall backs when i use for
>>instance non public fonts, or non public graphics, and i don't provide
>>support for that).
>>    
>>
>
>Oh, font replacements wouldn't be a big problem; graphics without
>"sources" (the preferred form of modification) probably would be.  But
>if you start putting this in the public, maybe we'll end up with a
>distributable source of the ConTeXt documentation sooner or later, even
>if it's impossible now.
>
>  
>
as said, if distributions take those sources and add them, it's ok for me

(btw, for a long time the tex book source code was distributed with the 
restriction that one might not publish them; this was ok for most users 
an dit was a nice resource; the same is true for some fonts: personally 
i don;t care that i may not change them, as long as i may use them, so 
in the end it's the users who pay the price for a too strict selection)

>>At some time I may put a zip archive with the manuals alongside the
>>other context zips, but i wonder is there is any interest in those
>>tens of megabytes.
>>    
>>
>
>The point is that as a general rule, we want to be able to modify the
>documentation.  Imagine me writing FKonTeXt, with some of the internal
>defaults changed to suit my and other's special needs - I think it'd be
>much better if I could provide the users with a correct manual for
>FKonTeXt, instead of just a "these are the differences to ConTeXt,
>besides that read the ConTeXt docs".  
>  
>
hm, i must say that upto now i never saw a manual (to some big piece of 
software) that was such an adaption; actually, there are not that many 
systems that ship with over 100 meg of documentation and samples; in 
most cases one ends up with buying a book (and in addition a pdf file 
for online viewing); so, in practice, context users are not that bad off;

we'll see what happens in te long run, for the moment i like the  cc  
licence  because i can understand it; actually, when someone told me 
that the gpl licence gets renewed and that one should really have a 
close look, i already got the uncomfortable feeling that i'd to look 
into the matter again since the context source code comes with a 
cc-wrapped gpl licence

[actually, for emotional reasons i'd rather not that users use the same covers since i consider them part of the context look and feel; for the same reasons i stimulate users to make their own styles just in order not to get this 'documents that scream tex/context'; too many coding samples make users lazy; also, to bring manual source code in such a state that users can learn something from it (which is my objective), take quite some effort and 'clean source code' is one of my conditions for making them available]

>  
>
>>BTW, concerning GPL and manuals ... manuals are no programs and i like
>>the simple and understandable CC ones
>>    
>>
>
>I'm not sure, and I'm not a legal guy, too; but it seems to me that the
>CC licenses without any commercial restriction would be okay provided
>that the source is available.
>  
>
i dunno; it's not a very strict restriction (i could havetaken a more strict one) 

anyhow, the restrictions in the licence only concerns making money out of printed manuals (if someone delivers a copy for printing cost that's ok); if someone wants to write books using examples in the source code of the manuals, fine; fyi: i have no plans to make any money from the manuals or documentation myself either: (1) i'm no brilliant writer, (2) it does not pay off, (3) i prefer putting stuff on the web for free, (4)  lack of time anyway, (5) that way i can make them the way i want]  

Hans 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
              Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                             | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------