[01:32] <ned> anyone there?
[01:33] <ned> oh well - I will try again tomorrow :-) cya!
[01:33] <mdke> gah
[02:08] <mdke> rob1, i haven't been able to work out why the qanda paragraphs are not vertically aligned with the numbers. Even with the same css as for breezy it doesn't help, so I think it must be something to do with the new way you've done the infra-document links. Any ideas?
[02:46] <LaserJock> mpt: so what do you think would need to be done with about-ubuntu wrt the wikipedia thing? Rewrite it?
[02:55] <mpt> yep
[02:56] <mpt> That's what Wikipedia does in the reverse situation, LaserJock :-)
[02:58] <Madpilot> LaserJock: pong
[02:59] <LaserJock> Madpilot: hmm, I can't remember why I pinged you? Oh maybe it was the cd burning thing.
[02:59] <LaserJock> mpt: so if we takes something that is GPL is that ok?
[03:00] <Madpilot> it was almost 11 hours ago that you pinged me, LaserJock ;)
[03:00] <Madpilot> it's called "being at work" network lag
[03:02] <LaserJock> Madpilot: I was just going to say that the only thing I cd burning for is iso's and that's why I like gnomebaker. I was unaware that Nautilus could do it.
[03:02] <mpt> LaserJock, no, the current license for all Ubuntu Documentation Team work is dual GFDL and CC BY-SA.
[03:02] <mpt> You can't take GPL stuff and mix it in.
[03:02] <Madpilot> LaserJock: I'm going to write the "how to burn ISOs w/ Nautilus" section tonight, actually
[03:03] <mpt> or GFDL stuff and mix it in.
[03:03] <mpt> or BY-SA stuff and mix it in.
[03:03] <LaserJock> mpt: so basically we have to do everything from scratch or get the authors to relicense?
[03:03] <Madpilot> Burgundavia (Corey) also pointed out that Naut can do straight copies of CDs, so I'll play with that, make notes, and write that up too.
[03:03] <Madpilot> We might not have to mention Gnomebaker at all, come to think of it
[03:04] <mpt> LaserJock, not everything, just the paragraphs that were taken from documents under a single license or a non-superset set of licenses.
[03:04] <LaserJock> Madpilot: cool, I just wanted to say that iso burning is pretty important in the linux world so we would want a pretty good section on that, but I think you've got that covered
[03:05] <LaserJock> mpt: well that could be a problem for me. The packaging guide was originally a GPL'd doc
[03:05] <Madpilot> ISO burning is even simpler than any other sort of burning - right click on the ISO, select Burn, done
[03:05] <LaserJock> Madpilot: sweet, linux gets easier and easier all the time. I remember doing it command line
[03:06] <Madpilot> Nautilus is actually an amazingly powerful app, it's not just for finding your porn... I mean, your files :D
[03:07] <LaserJock> Madpilot: I never use it so I didn't know it did cd burning
[03:10] <LaserJock> mpt: now you have me somewhat concerned
[03:17] <mpt> LaserJock, I wasn't aware of that
[03:18] <mpt> If a document starts GPL and was adopted by the documentation team, they can't just unilaterally change the license, they have to leave it GPL
[03:19] <mpt> but the document under discussion is the Desktop Guide, which is dual-licensed GFDL + BY-SA
[03:20] <LaserJock> mpt: do you know if the license for a .deb package applies to the contents or just the packaging? I would assume the contents
[03:20] <mpt> I have no idea
[03:22] <LaserJock> mpt: I got the doc from an aborted package done by a MOTU wannabe. The document itself has no license or copyright on it but the .deb package says GPL. That is why I assume it is GPL
[03:26] <LaserJock> mpt: I guess it was GPL because it "borrows" from the Debian New Maintainer Guide, which is GPL.
[03:27] <Madpilot> if it was derived from a GPL'd doc, then it's got to be GPL'd, doesn't it? viral licensing, and the rest?
[03:29] <LaserJock> hmm, at what point does it become non-derived? If there was every a version take from a GPL'd doc, even if it is nothing the same now, does it still have to be GPL?
[03:29] <LaserJock> s/every/ever/
[03:30] <Kaiser_Away> Madpilot: yeh, afaik that's right
[03:32] <Madpilot> LaserJock: that sounds like a good "ask a copyright lawyer" type question, but I believe (IANAL) that the intent of the GPL is that all derived works will be GPL
[03:32] <LaserJock> ok, so what do I do?
[03:33] <LaserJock> is it ok to just GPL it? or will that cause problems for the doc-team
[03:40] <LaserJock> what is the licence for the wiki? I think that has been debated before, right?
[03:41] <Madpilot> the wiki is dual-lic. GFDL/CC-BY-SA, just like the rest of the docs, AFAIK
[03:42] <LaserJock> ok, well half of the packaging guide is taken from the wiki so...
[03:42] <LaserJock> this is starting to sound more and more like a rewrite
[03:50] <LaserJock> maybe it is a discussion for the list?
[03:52] <Madpilot> LaserJock: I was about to suggest taking it to email
[03:52] <Madpilot> :)
[03:52] <mpt> licensing screw-ups are always fun
[03:53] <LaserJock> well, I think the original author maybe had a problem when half his doc was GPL and half was from the wiki
[03:54] <LaserJock> anyway, I will email the list and get the discussion going there.
[03:56] <Madpilot> heh, my simple little question about wording in the intro has already turned into a licensing mess, just add another larger one to the problem!
[03:58] <LaserJock> lol, licensing seems to be especially difficult for docs. There are so many sources to pull from. It is hard to track down all the licenses. You kinda have to do it from scratch but then why reinvent the wheel?
[04:03] <mpt> So write to your elected representative asking them to abolish copyright
[04:03] <Madpilot> anyone know what "(yelp:25163): Yelp-CRITICAL **: history_pop_back: assertion `window->priv->history_back != NULL' failed" means? I get that when I try and launch my modified version of commontasks.xml in yelp from terminal
[04:04] <LaserJock> well, I don't know that I have so much a problem with copyright as the large number of orthogonal licenses
[04:04] <Madpilot> abolishing copyright is a bit extreme - simplifying our doc & wiki licenses is simpler...
[04:05] <mpt> Madpilot, it's a programming error in yelp. Make a copy of your doc, then cleave chunks out of it until you have the smallest possible doc for which the assertion still occurs, then report a bug, attaching the file.
[04:06] <Madpilot> mpt: messy... thanks, I'll do that in a bit
[04:07] <mpt> Quite similar to the process for reporting layout bugs in Web browsers :-)
[04:07] <Madpilot> mpt: paste of all the error msgs and console commands I used: http://paste.ubuntulinux.nl/5316
[04:09] <Madpilot> is there another docbook xml viewer available, aside from yelp?
[06:52] <Madpilot> crap... yelp still isn't loading the xml I'm working on...
[07:08] <Madpilot> brian@warbard:~/ubuntu-doc$ ./validate.sh /ubuntu/desktopguide/C/common-tasks.xml
[07:08] <Madpilot> warning: failed to load external entity "/ubuntu/desktopguide/C/common-tasks.xml"
[07:08] <Madpilot> wtf? the string is right, why isn't it even starting to validate?
[07:10] <Kamping_Kaiser> should it be ./ubuntu
[07:12] <Madpilot> yes, it should have been, now I've got a screenful of xml validation errors...
[07:12] <Madpilot> thanks
[07:13] <Kamping_Kaiser> np ;)
[07:14] <Madpilot> now I've got to translate xml validation errors into english :P
[07:24] <Madpilot> there's no reason you can't have two <para></para> tags in a row, is there? I thought <para> = HTML's <p> tag?
[07:42] <Madpilot> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocteamStepByStepRepository <-- the svn diff command listed there doesn't seem to work... or else i'm just following the example wrong...
[10:50] <ned> hi all - can anyone help me with https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocteamStepByStepRepository I have made an update but I am stuck at step 4
[10:51] <Madpilot> ned: which step?
[10:52] <ned> step 4 - I have done some work on the serverguide which is in /generic not /ubuntu or /kubuntu like in the doc... if I follow the instructions but use /generic then I get an error
[10:53] <ned> make: *** No rule to make target `au'.  Stop.
[10:54] <Madpilot> meh...
[10:54] <ned> any ideas? I am probably doing something very basic wrong
[10:54] <Madpilot> I didn't get that HTML 'make' thing working either, I'm not sure what I did wrong...
[10:54] <ned> ahh :-)
[10:55] <ned> I will move on to step 6 then - thanks Madpilot
[10:55] <ned> oooh I guess I can't
[10:56] <Madpilot> does your stuff work in Yelp?
[10:57] <ned> yes but there was an error - though all I have changed is some text within paragraphs
[10:57] <Madpilot> I got the same thing - it's a known bug in Yelp, I gather...
[10:57] <ned> I thought as much
[10:58] <ned> what should I do with my changes then?
[10:58] <Madpilot> do what I did - generate the diff, send it off to the list, and get someone else to beat Yelp into shape...
[10:59] <Madpilot> XML drives me nuts, it's so wordy - I'm used to HTML/CSS...
[10:59] <ned> ok - I am used to neither :-/
[11:00] <Madpilot> what're you working on?
[11:00] <ned> ammending the serverguide
[11:01] <ned> svn diff > sguide.diff
[11:01] <ned> oops
[11:03] <Madpilot> Attention XChat Users: This Is Not Your Terminal Window. Thank You.
[11:04] <Madpilot> :D
[11:08] <mdke> hi all
[11:08] <mdke> ned, still here?
[11:09] <ned> yup
[11:09] <ned> just about to post the diff...
[11:10] <mdke> to build the serverguide you have to go to the ubuntu/ directory again
[11:10] <mdke> and do "make server"
[11:10] <ned> ok - will do - but I don't understand why
[11:11] <mdke> there is no real reason
[11:11] <ned> I get an error... bash: maker: command not found
[11:12] <mdke> you need to install "make" and probably "docbook-xsl" too
[11:12] <ned> Madpilot :-)
[11:12] <ned> I have docbook-xsl
[11:12] <ned> let me check make
[11:13] <ned> I have make 3.80-9
[11:14] <Madpilot> hi Burgundavia
[11:14] <Madpilot> mdke: seen that common-tasks diff I sent out?
[11:14] <mdke> not yet
[11:17] <mdke> Madpilot, ok what problems are you having with yelp?
[11:17] <mdke> works here
[11:17] <mdke> lemme try applying your patch
[11:18] <Madpilot> it basically refuses to launch from terminal w/ common-tasks.xml, either the svn version or my modified version
[11:18] <Burgundavia> mdke, we need to choose a wiki license and stay with it
[11:19] <ned> mdke shall I post my diff as it is?
[11:19] <mdke> ned, if it works, yeah
[11:20] <mdke> Madpilot, yeah you have to open the whole thing
[11:20] <mdke> Madpilot, your patch doesn't validate
[11:20] <mdke> Burgundavia, feel free to comment on the spec
[11:20] <Madpilot> wasn't sure if it would, TBH...
[11:20] <mdke> Madpilot, if you do "../../../validate.sh desktopguide.xml
[11:20] <mdke> it tells you what is wrong
[11:21] <Burgundavia> mdke, sorry, that was badly worded. I have had a bad day
[11:21] <mdke> Burgundavia, no, sounded fine to me :)
[11:22] <mdke> Madpilot, in this case it is just some inconsistent tags i think
[11:22] <Burgundavia> mdke, GFDL and CC-by-sa 2.0 sound great to me, because they we can take straight from the wiki into our onw docs
[11:22] <Madpilot> mdke: from what I can see, the stuff it's complaining about is not stuff that I've changed...
[11:23] <mdke> Madpilot, have a look at line 199 of the file
[11:23] <mdke> Madpilot, its complaining because you've closed a tag twice
[11:23] <Madpilot> OK, found that
 (which was closed 5 lines above)
[11:23] <mdke> nuke the first </para>
[11:23] <Madpilot> yup
[11:24] <Madpilot> except that the validate script doesn't actually mention line 199 anywhere...
[11:24] <mdke> erm
[11:24] <mdke> it does dude
[11:24] <mdke> the first thing it says is:
[11:24] <mdke> matt@kalliope:~/ubuntu/ubuntu-doc/trunk/ubuntu/desktopguide/C$ ../../../validate                                                                                          .sh desktopguide.xml 
[11:24] <mdke> common-tasks.xml:199: parser error : Opening and ending tag mismatch: answer lin                                                                                          e 191 and para

[11:25] <mdke> after that, you just need to fix one thing in line 96
[11:26] <mdke> which isn't working because you have a <para> inside another <para>
[11:26] <Madpilot> nested paras
[11:26] <mdke> got it :)
[11:26] <mdke> tell me how you're changing it and I'll just commit it without you sending another patch
[11:27] <mdke> Burgundavia, not free enough for me: too much attribution required
[11:27] <Madpilot> mdke: just ditch the inner set of paras, I guess
[11:27] <Burgundavia> mdke, they we should change our own licenses as well
[11:27] <mdke> Burgundavia, why?
[11:27] <mdke> ned, it's "make server"
[11:28] <Burgundavia> mdke, because the ability to move straight out of the wiki is important
[11:28] <Madpilot> mdke: so... to actually validate or view this stuff, you've got to validate and view some parent doc, rather than the specific doc you're working on?
[11:28] <Burgundavia> mdke, if our licenses require too much attribution, how do WP et al get away with not listing every author on the actual page?
[11:29] <mdke> Burgundavia, it is COPIES of the material that require the attribution
[11:29] <mdke> or derivative works
[11:29] <mdke> Madpilot, the desktopguide is all one document. But you can run the script on the single file too
[11:30] <Burgundavia> mdke, WP have done offline versions
[11:30] <Burgundavia> mdke, observe the german wikireaders
[11:30] <Madpilot> mdke: hmm, I'm still thinking in HTML terms, I guess, where each file is freestanding, except for CSS links...
[11:31] <mdke> Burgundavia, that's the same document, but if someone else were to copy and article and release it, they'd have to attribute the author and the url
[11:31] <Burgundavia> mdke, can we get away with "Ubuntu doc team"?
[11:32] <mdke> Burgundavia, for attributing the wiki?
[11:32] <mdke> i don't think so
[11:32] <Burgundavia> mdke, yep
[11:32] <Burgundavia> why not?
[11:32] <mdke> because we didn't write it
[11:32] <Burgundavia> yes we did
[11:32] <mdke> Madpilot, applying?
[11:33] <mdke> Burgundavia, well, i don't think that would be sufficient attribution. I'd prefer to just license the wiki with something free-er
[11:33] <Burgundavia> mdke, then we need to change all of our licenses to something "freer"
[11:33] <mdke> i disagree
[11:34] <Madpilot> mdke: sorry, I thought you were going to tweak my diff as is, and apply it?
[11:34] <mdke> we don't need to make it easier to copy our docs, but we do need to make it easier to copy the wiki
[11:34] <mdke> Madpilot, ok, just wanted to confirm
[11:34] <mdke> done.
[11:34] <Burgundavia> yes need to make it easier to us to use what is already written, regardless of source
[11:34] <Madpilot> mdke: thanks
[11:35] <mdke> Burgundavia, well i have no objection to changing our licences but I see the pressing need for changing the wiki licence rather than a pressing need for changing our docs, because we don't need to copy our docs :)
[11:36] <mdke> i think we can address the issues separately
[11:36] <Burgundavia> mdke, piecemeal licensing is a recipe for disaster further down the road
[11:37] <mdke> Burgundavia, first, it's not piecemeal because the wiki is a totally different ball game. second, what disaster?
[11:38] <mdke> don't forget the nature of the wiki is totally different
[11:38] <Burgundavia> we need to figure out how to bridge the wiki <--> doc gap, not make it a 100' wall
[11:38] <Burgundavia> holy crap we need bzr
[11:38] <mdke> you are high
[11:38] <mdke> :)
[11:38] <Burgundavia> we have 4 different people sending patches
[11:38] <Burgundavia> no I am not
[11:38] <mdke> the wiki is collaborative and anyone can chip things in, by contrast, only a few people have access to the docs, and even fewer actually write them
[11:39] <Burgundavia> that is fine
[11:39] <mdke> as for bzr, i really don't think we need a decentralised system
[11:39] <mdke> it will make things more confusing, rather than less
[11:39] <Madpilot> Burgundavia: right now, at least, everyone sending diffs seems to be working on seperate docs...
[11:39] <Burgundavia> not relaly
[11:39] <mdke> but we can talk about it
[11:39] <mpt> It can be as centrailized as you want it to be
[11:39] <mpt> urg, I can't spell this early in the morning
[11:39] <mdke> mpt, well i understand work is going on on that. But then again, so can svn
[11:40] <Burgundavia> mdke, unlike you, I don't see us staying with moin until the bloody world ends
[11:40] <mdke> i'm also told that the centralised aspect of bzr is not ready yet
[11:40] <mpt> with svn you have no choice :-)
[11:40] <mdke> mpt, that may well be a good thing
[11:41] <mpt> mdke, er what? Launchpad has been using it centralized since just before UBZ
[11:41] <Burgundavia> and when we move to a more robust web editing system, our licenses will be far more important
[11:41] <mdke> mpt, just what I was told. i was pointed at http://bazaar.canonical.com/LockStepDevelopment
[11:42] <mdke> mpt, someone has to merge in launchpad patches I thought
[11:42] <mdke> shit, i'm late
[11:47] <mdke> Burgundavia, quick last thought. What I say has nothing to do with moin. The fact is that the wiki is not where we write our docs, and everyone can contribute. If we move to a web editing system, I agree, we'll have to think about the licence for that. But for the main wiki, i see no need to have the _same_ licence as for our docs per se.
[11:50] <Burgundavia> mdke, here is a compromise
[11:50] <mdke> also, i don't think the wiki needs a full licence
[11:50] <mdke> something simple is good enough
[11:50] <mdke> just to make sure people know that they are giving away what they post
[11:50] <Burgundavia> gpl is not simpler than gfdl
[11:50] <Burgundavia> mdke, that is also a recipe for disaster, imho
[11:50] <mdke> Burgundavia, gpl is not the proposed solution. You read the spec?
[11:51] <Burgundavia> mdke, I was reacting to your posting about the packaging guide
[11:51] <mdke> i was suggesting gpl for that guide, not for the wiki. Please read the spec
[11:51] <Burgundavia> ugh
[11:51] <Burgundavia> anyway, we can talk later
[11:52] <mdke> sorry if that wasn't clear
[11:52] <Burgundavia> yes, that was not clear
[11:52] <mdke> remailed
[11:53] <mdke> ok gtg
[11:53] <mdke> see ya later
[11:54] <Burgundavia> Madpilot, have you every seen js for something similar to this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4491672.stm
[11:54] <Burgundavia> Madpilot, my crazy thought was doing that with svg and embedded images for help
[11:55] <Burgundavia> Madpilot, and are you free on Sunday to work on the VLUG website?
[11:55] <Madpilot> sure - do you want to come over Sunday afternoon?
[11:55] <Burgundavia> sounds good to me
[11:56] <Madpilot> http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menu/scroll_gallery.html <-- near-pure CSS gallery
[11:57] <Burgundavia> can it support clicking to stay on that image, ala the BBC gallery?
[11:57] <Burgundavia> doesn't need to support IE
[11:57] <Burgundavia> and it should only support clicking, not roll over change
[11:58] <Madpilot> no idea - there are a pile of gallery things out there, though
[11:58] <Burgundavia> ok cool
[12:01] <Madpilot> Burgundavia: new stable version of CMSMS due out before Xmas; v1.0 early in the New Year, apparently
[12:38] <Burgundavia> Madpilot, cool
[12:39] <Madpilot> Burgundavia: it is. you got my email?
[12:40] <Burgundavia> which one?
[12:41] <Madpilot> asking about your DVD SVG art?
[12:41] <Burgundavia> yes
[12:41] <Burgundavia> I will do the work on that tomorrow if I get a chance, if not, by Sunday
[12:41] <Madpilot> thanks
[12:42] <Madpilot> need sleep - got to work @ 1000. Ick...
[12:42] <Madpilot> later
[12:44] <Burgundavia> night
[03:00] <jsgotangco> hey all
[03:37] <mdke> hi jsgotangco 
[03:40] <jsgotangco> hey mdke
[03:40] <jsgotangco> what's up?
[03:51] <freeflying> hi
[04:51] <mdke> jsgotangco, not much, a lazy weekend
[04:57] <mdke> jsgotangco, we're seeing quite a few patches from new contributors :)
[05:46] <LaserJock> mdke: ping?
[06:43] <LaserJock> hi mpt
[06:46] <LaserJock> mpt: did you see my email (and mdke's response) in ubuntu-doc?
[06:46] <mpt> LaserJock, no, I'm still about 200 messages behind
[06:48] <LaserJock> mpt: np, I'll let you catch up then ;-)
[08:05] <MichaleR> Hey Robert
[09:53] <LaserJock> mpt: did you make it to the ubuntu-doc email yet? :-)
[10:04] <ned> folks if I validate even before I edit I get an error:  ./validate.sh generic/styleguide/grammar.xml
[10:04] <ned> validity error : no DTD found!
[10:04] <ned> Document generic/styleguide/grammar.xml does not validate
[10:04] <ned>  - is that normal or am I doing something wrong?
[10:18] <LaserJock> ned: I'm not sure but I get that too
[10:22] <mpt> LaserJock, 280 messages to go
[10:29] <LaserJock> mpt: lol, I'll check in with you later ;-)
[11:08] <rob1> who the heck was michaleR?
[11:12] <mpt> whowas says "Michael Rasmussen", why?
[11:12] <mpt> oh
[11:19] <rob1> man ebay people are cheap, the postage for an item I'm selling is a little more then normal (due to its weight) yet I keep getting questions about it (despite me clearly explaining how I came up with the amount using the australia post website)
[11:22] <HrdwrBoB> because people are tards
[11:23] <rob1> yes. yes they are.