Better docs for D (WIP)

[Chris Wright via Digitalmars-d-announce]

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.

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.