[Scribus] this whole wiki thing
Fri Feb 4 21:09:05 CET 2005
* Craig Bradney <cbradney at zip.com.au> [2005-02-04 12:54:22 +0100]:
> On Friday 04 February 2005 12:17, Thomas R. Koll wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 11:48:06AM +0100, Craig Bradney wrote:
> > > On Friday 04 February 2005 11:24, Thomas R. Koll wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 09:30:09AM +0100, Craig Bradney wrote:
> > > > > On Friday 04 February 2005 08:44, Thomas R. Koll wrote:
> > > > > > Other question: Why a by-nc instead of by-sa? It will get a problem
> > > > > > for publishers using parts of the docs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly the idea.
> > > >
> > > > Then we should include parts of the wiki into the Scribus package.
> > >
> > > We already include Scribus documentation in the package.. which we intend
> > > to be different to that on the wiki.
> > Sorry, I meant:
> > Then we should not include parts of the wiki into the Scribus package.
> > The by-nc is considered incompatible by the Debian staff and we surely
> > would get problems with that.
> > And if we can't include the docs from the wiki, then the wiki makes less
> > sense.
> Its only Debian with its interesting ideas that does this. The Debian 1.2.1
> version of Scribus already does not include the documentation but there is a
> documentation package in the non-free packages of Debian. All the other
> distros are quite happy to package as we do.
I don't think that this discussion should turn into mocking other people's
choices, should it. Respect usually goes two ways.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20050204/dbe3ab79/attachment.pgp
More information about the scribus