|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This isn't the kind of software where we can leave so many unresolved bugs that we need a tracker for them." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
error
|
 |
June 04, 2011, 02:21:16 AM |
|
Go ahead and write it.  |
3KzNGwzRZ6SimWuFAgh4TnXzHpruHMZmV8
|
|
|
marcus_of_augustus (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2348
Eadem mutata resurgo
|
|
June 04, 2011, 02:35:52 AM |
|
Go ahead and write it. Okay, I'll give it a go. Never done anything with creating man pages before except read them. And can't say I'm the world's expert on bitcoin functionality by a long shot but if I put something out there others can improve on it. Any, all constructive input welcome. (I decide what's constructive until someone else takes it over). |
|
|
|
|
Matt Corallo
|
|
June 05, 2011, 11:43:25 AM |
|
There is one written for the Debain package, you can just grab it from there.
|
|
|
|
marcus_of_augustus (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2348
Eadem mutata resurgo
|
|
June 05, 2011, 01:41:30 PM |
|
There is one written for the Debain package, you can just grab it from there.
Thanks. Lucky I wasn't gonna start on that until tomorrow. If someone else is maintaining that one is there a reason why it isn't in with the git source? Got a link to the Debian package source? |
|
|
|
|
|
marcus_of_augustus (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2348
Eadem mutata resurgo
|
|
June 05, 2011, 02:07:30 PM |
|
Nup. Nothing in that link ... any more ideas? |
|
|
|
|
|
marcus_of_augustus (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2348
Eadem mutata resurgo
|
|
June 05, 2011, 02:23:00 PM
Last edit: June 05, 2011, 02:45:37 PM by mother_of_another |
|
Thanks, that'll get me started, or finished even. Edit: well that all looks complete on first glance. Maybe just update any changes since 0.3.19 and then where is best place for it to go for general dissemination? |
|
|
|
|
Matt Corallo
|
|
June 05, 2011, 04:41:06 PM |
|
Edit: well that all looks complete on first glance. Maybe just update any changes since 0.3.19 and then where is best place for it to go for general dissemination?
Email the debian maintainer/man page author to get it updated. Also, ask him about licensing. I would like to see it in Bitcoin's tree, but according to the file, it is under GPL and thus incompatible with Bitcoin's MIT, and I, personally, dont really want to see one file with GPL and the rest MIT. |
|
|
|
hacim
Member
Offline
Activity: 64
Merit: 10
|
|
June 08, 2011, 03:18:03 PM |
|
I welcome any updates to the man pages for the newer versions of bitcoin that have come out since I originally wrote the current man page.
I also think it would make sense to include it in the upstream source. I'm a bit puzzled by the assertion that the GPL is incompatible with the MIT license. Its not incompatible, unless someone is thinking that they want to redistribute bitcoin, and the man page, under a more restrictive license for some purpose. Which MIT permits, but GPL does not. For what purpose would someone want to restricting users' rights?
|
15yns1RVpBHZ8uj8mGVUJVCyPh5ieW3FQx
|
|
|
|
error
|
|
June 08, 2011, 11:46:24 PM |
|
GPL is also a very strange license to use for documentation.
|
3KzNGwzRZ6SimWuFAgh4TnXzHpruHMZmV8
|
|
|
|
Matt Corallo
|
|
June 09, 2011, 10:55:56 AM |
|
I also think it would make sense to include it in the upstream source. I'm a bit puzzled by the assertion that the GPL is incompatible with the MIT license. Its not incompatible, unless someone is thinking that they want to redistribute bitcoin, and the man page, under a more restrictive license for some purpose. Which MIT permits, but GPL does not. For what purpose would someone want to restricting users' rights?
Sorry, I suppose I wasn't clear there. I didn't mean that its incompatible ie not possible, but that it is incompatible ie of a more restrictive license and thus wouldn't be committable to the Bitcoin repo. Without wanting to get into the intricacies of FLOSS licensing, Bitcoin is MIT for a reason, and GPL isnt committable. |
|
|
|
marcus_of_augustus (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2348
Eadem mutata resurgo
|
|
June 13, 2011, 09:02:48 AM |
|
I also think it would make sense to include it in the upstream source. I'm a bit puzzled by the assertion that the GPL is incompatible with the MIT license. Its not incompatible, unless someone is thinking that they want to redistribute bitcoin, and the man page, under a more restrictive license for some purpose. Which MIT permits, but GPL does not. For what purpose would someone want to restricting users' rights?
Sorry, I suppose I wasn't clear there. I didn't mean that its incompatible ie not possible, but that it is incompatible ie of a more restrictive license and thus wouldn't be committable to the Bitcoin repo. Without wanting to get into the intricacies of FLOSS licensing, Bitcoin is MIT for a reason, and GPL isnt committable. Okay, so we can't use the debian man page for the main client because of "the intricacies of FLOSS licensing" , so what now? If someone was to re-write a man page I can't see how it would be largely different from the debian man page without being wrong, I mean, how many ways can you write a man page? So bitcoind is doomed to exist forever without a man page in the main client? Have we arrived at the ridiculous stage where writing an OSS man page is more about the licensing than informing the users of how to use the program? (That would suck). I'll close this thread and be done with it if there isn't any ideas towards furthering the cause. |
|
|
|
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 5180
Merit: 12877
|
|
June 13, 2011, 09:29:18 AM |
|
|
1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
|
|
|
Basiley
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
June 13, 2011, 09:21:45 PM |
|
GPL is also a very strange license to use for documentation.
why ? its used and used well. same about hardware. from building construction to food recipes. |
|
|
|
|
M2Ys4U
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 6
Merit: 0
|
|
June 15, 2011, 09:45:47 AM |
|
GPL is also a very strange license to use for documentation.
why ? its used and used well. same about hardware. from building construction to food recipes. The GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License) would be more appropriate. Here's the GNU explaination on why the GPL isn't that good for docs: Why don't you use the GPL for manuals?
It is possible to use the GPL for a manual, but the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is much better for manuals.
The GPL was designed for programs; it contains lots of complex clauses that are crucial for programs, but that would be cumbersome and unnecessary for a book or manual. For instance, anyone publishing the book on paper would have to either include machine-readable “source code” of the book along with each printed copy, or provide a written offer to send the “source code” later.
Meanwhile, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free manuals make a profit from selling copies—cover texts, for instance. The special rules for Endorsements sections make it possible to use the GFDL for an official standard. This would permit modified versions, but they could not be labeled as “the standard”.
Using the GFDL, we permit changes in the text of a manual that covers its technical topic. It is important to be able to change the technical parts, because people who change a program ought to change the documentation to correspond. The freedom to do this is an ethical imperative.
Our manuals also include sections that state our political position about free software. We mark these as “invariant”, so that they cannot be changed or removed. The GFDL makes provisions for these “invariant sections”. |
|
|
|
|
Stemby
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2450
Merit: 1008
|
|
July 12, 2011, 11:56:12 AM |
|
|
“…virtual currencies, could have a substitution effect on central bank money if they become widely accepted.”
ECB Report, October 2012
|
|
|
|
