[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-commits
Subject:    Re: www/areas/usability/hig
From:       Frans Englich <frans.englich () telia ! com>
Date:       2004-09-01 20:21:13
Message-ID: 200409012021.13372.frans.englich () telia ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 20:04, Thomas Zander wrote:
> CVS commit by zander:
>
> Updated to a more correct text 
> and point to the old version since the new 
> version (in the subdirs)
> is not quite correct and seems to be unmaintained 
> currently.

Oh.. Now I see. I understand your actions; I had replied your "Moved 
Guidelines." thread but it had stayed in my queue. What a mess. 

What is below, is that reply. Any ideas what to do now?


		Frans



On Friday 27 August 2004 10:54, Thomas Zander wrote:
> In reply to:
> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-usability&m=109329930910647&w=2
>
> The guidelines as they were published on developer.kde.org was copyrighted
> (for at least 80%) by me.
> Changing that to "Copyright © 1999 - 2004 KDE Usability Team" is therefor
> incorrect where I am forced to react if I want to keep my copyright.
> Furthermore there was no licence attached to the old styleguide which makes
> it illegal to re-licence it like you did.
> Minimum checking on your side would have presented you with these facts,
>
> I do not find it in KDEs interrest to make too big of a problem out of
> this; but I strongly urge that Frans Englich be more respectfull of others
> copyright in the future.
> In short: get (and wait for) the various parties permissions in the future.

There was no copyright, author, license information in the files, AFAICT. But 
right, it would be a good idea to find if anyone had contributed 
substantially according to `cvs annotate` and go that path. I've found the 
guidelines unmaintained, no one have worked on them or fixed it to a decent 
state -- that is the reason to why I considered it "parent less" and went for 
the neutral GNU FDL and "KDE Usability Team".

This was also discussed on kde-cvs:
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-cvs&m=109312400208766&w=2

If you don't like the current, feel free to suggest a better solution(but I do 
get you emphasize the bureaucratic aspect).

>
> There has appeared an incorrect statement on the first page of the
> derivative work as found on: http://usability.kde.org/hig/
> The statement that it is soon to become 1.0 is blatantly false (who told
> you that?)

No one did: I made it up. The purpose of giving it a number is simply to add 
structure; to have something that easily can be referenced(the "new" HIG is 
the old, edited to bring out the content, and the technical framework 
replaced) so development can continue on a separate copy. This was discussed 
in the thread mentioned below and people found it a good idea. It's not a big 
deal.

> please remove that.

But there can of course exist reason to remove it and not mark a version 1.0. 
Feel free to motivate.

>
> It may be of interrest to point out on that page that there is an official 

You'll have to explain how usability.kde.org/hig/ not is official since it's 
the only one we have. You will also explain in what way it doesn't have 
"embracement" and if so, why. This was extensively discussed on 
kde-core-devel(among other places), where Aaron do assertions similar to you:
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=109317854331524&w=2

> (following industry standards) version in the works.

Right, it's current a blur. I still find it unclear what will happen from now 
on; I'll change it as the "KDE HIG, CIG and AG" thread develops.


                        Frans


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]