[19:16] <BiosElement> Hello, I'm with the ubuntu community learning project and we're trying to decide which format we should use, docbook vs. sphinx. The major downfall of docbook is it's rather difficult to edit xml by hand. any suggestions?
[21:22] <dinda> mdke: did the wiki licensing topic get discussed at the CC meeting yet?
[22:49] <mdke> dinda: it was discussed a while back, and I've reflected some of the discussion in the spec. It seems to me that there are some serious issues to overcome before the spec can go further though
[22:53] <dinda> mdke:  agreed. . .
[22:53] <dinda> mdke: I'm interested in that Canonical is listed as the default copyright holder - which as you point out, doesn't seem ok
[22:53] <mdke> yeah
[22:54] <mdke> that's also the case with ubuntu-docs actually
[22:54] <mdke> but it doesn't work, legally
[22:54] <doctormo> dinda: Unless there has been copyright asignment, that doesn't sound right
[22:54] <dinda> mdke: on the other hand, as someone who works for Canonical and having just hired someone to write large amounts of material that could have just been lifted from the wiki. . .
[22:55] <dinda> well, I'm trying to find a way to not having to keep hiring people to write material that we could somehow jointly develop under a more free license
[22:55] <mdke> doctormo: there certainly hasn't
[22:56] <mdke> dinda: there is always a way to jointly develop material under a free license :)
[22:56] <dinda> mdke;  I'm hoping to find some common ground  :)
[22:57] <mdke> well, I can't comment without knowing more specifics, but sharing is easy, it's when stuff is unlicensed (like wiki.u.c) that it gets difficult
[22:57] <doctormo> mdke: We in the Ubuntu Learning project have been discussing the same sorts of things
[22:57] <dinda> doctormo: exactly, no use in all of us developing and rewriting material that obviously overlaps
[22:59] <doctormo> dinda: Aye, question of value and investment thought fromt he business side of things. (although I wouldn't have thought FOSS, copyleft and commons needed explaining, perhaps I'll do a thing at UDS)
[22:59] <dinda> mdke: so what's the status on the copyright issue?  is there a good way to move the discussion forward?
[23:00] <mdke> it's waiting on the other CC members for their thoughts really
[23:00] <mdke> if it was just for me, I'd tend to take the same approach as we did for the help wiki
[23:00] <mdke> I think the chances of it going wrong are very, very small indeed
[23:01] <mdke> and that's good enough for me. But it's not only my call
[23:01] <dinda> mdke;  I hope we can get something worked out by the next LTS, as that is when we will be doing the bulk of our work in documentation for Canonical
[23:02] <mdke> what sort of work are we talking about? user documentation?
[23:02] <dinda> mdke: basically technical reference manuals for each our courses
[23:03] <mdke> and does material come from wiki.u.c for that?
[23:03] <dinda> which is very much just enhanced documentation
[23:03] <mdke> s/does/would
[23:03] <dinda> mdke: no, we do it all seperately at the moment
[23:03] <mdke> what tools?
[23:04] <dinda> dpending on the course either docbook or odt files
[23:04] <dinda> the desktop course, which is CC-BY-SA-NC is docbook, hosted in bzr
[23:05] <dinda> everything else is odt in our private repositories (Moodle)
[23:05] <mdke> ok, well obviously sharing isn't possible for cc-by-sa-nc material, because any licensing we would apply to wiki.u.c would need to be free (as with help.u.c)
[23:05] <mdke> but if it's docbook, then you are probably looking at using bzr anyway, rather than a wiki, no?
[23:06] <dinda> so I'm trying to find a compromise so some of the work we're already hiring for, could be released under the CC SA only license
[23:06] <mdke> nice
[23:07] <mdke> it sounds more like stuff that would be appropriate for help.u.c/community rather than wiki.u.c?
[23:08] <dinda> mdke:  an uphill battle at the moment but if we can separate out our course exercises and practicals, as doctormo calls them, them we might be able to release some of the straight technical reference as CC-BY-SA or other compatible license
[23:08] <mdke> I'd be pleased to see that
[23:08] <mdke> the -nc license has always bothered me, as you know :)
[23:09] <dinda> mdke: you're not alone ;)
[23:09] <mdke> true
[23:10] <dinda> mdke: okay, have to run to tea but let me know if there is any movement on the wiki licensing topic - I subscribed to the page
[23:10] <dinda> but if we need to poke people let me know
[23:12] <mdke> dinda: will do, thanks