open source license? is it thought as a collaborative project? about diataxis-documentation-framework

[evildmp]

Hi @timmwille @robredpath. I am happy to accept corrections and also suggestions for improvement.

It's not really a collaborative project in the way that open-source software is.

Please feel free to use/borrow/rework the material and concepts as you wish. If possible, please refer back to https://diataxis.fr.

[evildmp]

Thanks for the suggestion; implemented.

[evildmp]

@jamesottaway Thanks for pointing it out, but it's absolutely fine! I used to work at Divio, which is where Diátaxis started life. https://documentation.divio.com has been around for years, and predates https://diataxis.fr.

[robredpath]

I came here just to ask this, too - I'd love to use some of the resources here in my work but without a proper license I can't.

I'd be happy to help choose an appropriate license, if that's helpful?

[timmwille]

I'll share it right away, good news, thx !

[jamesottaway]

@evildmp Are you aware that Divio have forked the repo and removed all reference to you and the original source?

IANAL, but their "update to new theme" commit (especially in conf.py) could violate the CC-BY-SA license, since there's no attribution back to you.

I've been aware of Diataxis for a few years and really like what you've built here, so I was surprised to find that ThoughtWorks link to Divio's version on their technology radar: https://www.thoughtworks.com/radar/techniques/documentation-quadrants

[wolftune]

Super happy to have learned about the continuation of this project and the CC BY-SA licensing. I have made plans to reference these ideas in other projects and am thrilled to have this FLO (free/libre/open) reference to cite instead of Divio.

It's not really a collaborative project in the way that open-source software is.

Is this a ramification of having some code-centric starting assumptions about FLO? Why not treat it the same way?

Many or even most FLO software projects are actually made by one person or one entity, some with near-zero outside collaboration. So, FLO software also can be not-really-collaborative as a matter of circumstance. Perhaps this can be thought of that way. It's not focused on being collaborative, but typo-fixes and other improvements and things that move more toward collaboration could still be welcomed, and just maybe some people will make significant contributions. Nothing wrong with that, right?