<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Brian Behlendorf <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brian@behlendorf.com" target="_blank">brian@behlendorf.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Nice start! Quick comments, all in humble opinion which is why I didn't make edits directly...<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
- Any suggestions on the presentation of the information? i.e., is simple bold headings OK? Should we do some fancy table thing instead? Do you like/dislike the ": Information" and ": License Text" I added to the <h1> headers?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I think it should be clearly visually distinct from the text of the license itself, say in a different box with a different background color, just to make it clear to the first-time reader within a few seconds that this metadata is not the text of the license. The table of contents for the license and the text of the license should be more closely visually aligned than this metadata.<br>
<div class="im"></div></blockquote><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><nod><br><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">This sort of finetuning probably needs to happen on <a href="http://opensource.org">opensource.org</a> (drupal) rather than <a href="http://wiki.opensource.org">wiki.opensource.org</a> (dokuwiki) just because of the differences in stylesheets, etc., etc.<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Speaking of that: is it possible for someone skilled in Drupal to advise how we could make a "license" template that would handle this automagically, instead of requiring hand-crafted HTML in each page?<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
- Any comments on what information is/isn't presented? (If you must have extensive discussion of the existing categories or the desirability/possibility of getting more objective information, please change the email subject header :)<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
A link to both the submission and the notes from the board meeting where the license was approved would seem good.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The board meeting notes, in every case that I'm aware of, are pretty uninformative- they simply say approved/not approved. I'm open to persuasion on this point, I suppose, but I'm inclined to see it as noise/additional clutter.<br>
</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The link to "license category" should go straight to the license category page, not to the proliferation committee report. On that page, each license category really should get the description/criteria for that category, rather than making the reader read through the report or guess from the list of licenses in each category to understand what the categories mean.<br>
<div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, fair point re the categories page. That said, the description/criteria for the categories weren't exactly written with these uses in mind. :/ If someone wanted to take a pass at editing them into something usable for the purpose, I'd be open to that...<br>
</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
- Obviously this information will not all be available for all licenses. In those cases, should we simply omit reference to the information, or should we say something like "Canonical text: the canonical text is no longer available" or "OSI discussion: this license was approved before OSI's current mail archive system, and so the discussion is no longer available"? I think the latter.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
The latter, though it would be really good to dig up archives and post them, perhaps specifically board meeting minutes where the licenses were approved.<br><div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I do want to be aggressive about digging up the old records.<br>
</div><div> <br></div><div>Luis<br></div></div></div></div>