Better docs for D (WIP)

[Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Chris Wright via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:03:25 +0200, Rory McGuire via
> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>
>> The problem is the D logo etc at the top of his docs mixed with Adam's
>> resentment. Your email validates what I was suggesting he should avoid.
>
> My newsreader's history doesn't support your memory of events.
>
> The problem you cited was "insulting our official docs" and (nonexistent)
> community splits resulting from the insults. Your predicted / recommended
> response to that problem was "a cease and desist letter from the D
> Foundation".
>
> There's no evidence that you considered trademark issues at all until I
> brought them up. If I'd cited copyright infringement instead, I'm betting
> you would have jumped on that, even though the docs are Boost-licensed.

Are you trying to understand me, or alienate me? I'm unsure what your
motivation is for undermining my trying to explain myself in more
words.

>
> What I would actually expect, instead of a C&D letter, is a set of
> guidelines for using the D logo and other trademarked material. That's
> pretty standard for open source projects. And if those guidelines forbad
> using the D logo for a documentation mirror, that would be a problem.
>
> An airtight set of guidelines probably requires a trademark lawyer, which
> probably costs more than the D Foundation has in its coffers. We might
> see a preliminary set of guidelines coming out in the next year or so.
>
> I don't see how a criticism of the official documentation (even one you
> believe is insulting) fragments the community. Most people around here
> think D's documentation is a problem. Adam Ruppe provided both specific
> feedback and an implemented alternative, which is much more constructive
> than average. He's got a pull request for content changes that he's made,
> too, which is the opposite of fragmentation.