documentation help requested for new mediawiki

[Wilbert]

That's a useful page you have there! I will use that to fix all links that already exist.

[Gerard V]

Wilbert. - OK, thats clear. I'll have a go at some of that in the next couple of weeks.

I think I gleaned from the prior postings that I'll not be able to edit the WIKI directly. Whats the preferred option at this stage for submitting material?

[foxyshadis]

Richard dealt with that; as long as you sign up for an account, you can edit anything you need to (except admin pages, obviously).

[Gerard V]

Here's a first draft - still to be proofed and tweaked. Is this in line with expectations? Critique welcome. Also - where's the capitalisation standard defined, and did I get this one right?

Edited - I've put it online for now.
New Page DGBob

[smokeslikeapoet]

Not a whole lot of action. I got a few external plugins done this week but it looks like editing is pretty stagnant.

[Wilbert]

I'm very busy in PL (got a new job/appartment). So except for the weekend i don't have much time to do anything. My current project is updating the faq.

edit: i saw you already started on some external plugin descriptions. That's great!

[Si]

Is there a guide (simple obviously :-) ) on how to edit this new wiki - I started transferring SimpleSample stuff but can't work out how to format it properly (well at all actually )

regards
Simon

[foxyshadis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing

This is the main jump-off point, there's a comprehensive list of basic formatting and sidebar and bottom links to further information. The really advanced information is scattered all over mediawiki and wikipedia (a real pain), but you won't need that.

[smokeslikeapoet]

Maybe a template for external filters would be in order. You know, a general format for required information, like download location, author, license, and general description, and then optional information like usage examples and advanced usage. If there was a standardized format It would be very easy for people like me to convert readme files and forum anouncements to wiki documentation.

[Si]

Thanks

The simple way to just put in a page of code (or any other text) is to use

<pre>

at the start of the page and then it doesn't try and interpret characters as Wiki format instructions :-)

regards
Simon

[foxyshadis]

A major Tikiwiki exploit has been found and is being actively exploited. I think the old wiki should be immediately shut down, or these steps taken before avisynth.org is hacked:
http://tikiwiki.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=136

If it isn't tikiwiki, I apologize, and ignore this.

[Richard Berg]

The old wiki is tavi.sourceforge.net. Thanks for the heads-up.

[Fizick]

Recently we start discussion with niiyan and Wilbert, what is avisynth documentation license?
GNU GPL or it is better switch it to GNU free documentation license? ( with all contributors permission.)
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...797#post913797
I stay for GPL.

Today I discover this words in my local copy of avisynth MediWiki :
"Content is available under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5."
it is one of documentation licenses suggested by CreativeCommons.org.
They are often used for Wiki, yes, in various variants.
(other popular is GNU Free Documentaion License, used by wikipedia for example)

But when and why Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 was set as a avisynth mediawiki license?
By the way, it is legally not compatible with GNU GPL.
So, we can not mix documentation and move text from one to other.

May be put avisynth documentation to mediwiki as not-editable, and under GNU GPL.
Users must have permission to comment, discuss, talk about these pages only.
May be we will get more response so way (people do not risk to edit official pages now

7. Final (main) question. I hope, avisynth.grg will be available soon.
But may be simply forget about mediawiki? It is almost empty and I do not see volonters to support 3 types of docu.

May be it is possible to upgrade old WiKi? or automatically trasfer its content to mediawiki?
(after resolving license issue).

EDIT: Oops, today I discover tha mediawiki was not empty but almost full (231 files or more)! Sorry.

[Wilbert]

May be put avisynth documentation to mediwiki as not-editable, and under GNU GPL.

No, both are a bad idea. GPL maybe allowed for documentation, but i think it's a bad idea because GPL is not really a documentation license.

Users must have permission to comment, discuss, talk about these pages only.

No, bad idea. The old situation was that they have to login, because some people spammed those paged. Imo, that is the preferred situation.

But may be simply forget about mediawiki? It is almost empty and I do not see volonters to support 3 types of docu.

There are two types of docu. The old wiki is not supported anymore and will be disbanded when everything is transferred to Mediawiki. I'm sure you know that this is the intent. I just don't have enough time anymore to do this within a reasonable time frame (and yes i very much appreciate your help!).

As for the license of the documentation. The documents were never licensed, so they were just copyrighted. Afaik, they were not under GPL, despite what you think. Release the source under the GPL, doesn't mean that the corresponding documentation is GPL. So, this 'Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5' was strictly not legal. Mistakes can happen and perhaps Richard never thought about issues like this.

I think the ideal situation is to put it under the 'GNU free documentation license' or use no license at all.

[Fizick]

"just copyrigted" work con not be copied and distributed.
Official distribution is at sourceforge, with docs included.
(only GPL was stated at install).

Internal function decriptions and syntax.htm are certainly GPL.
(written by Ben, sh0dan, ...)

May be dual-licensing of some parts?

Interesting link:
http://embeddedlinux.movial.fi/index...%26_Guidelines
and discussion:
http://tree.celinuxforum.org/piperma...er/001367.html

[niiyan]

Originally Posted by Fizick

But when and why Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 was set as a avisynth mediawiki license?

I don't know when and why.
But when I first looked at mediawiki, it has been already under Creative Commons License (by-nc-sa).
And it is one of the reasons I changed licence of Japanese AviSynth Wiki to Creative Commons, because Japanese AviSynth Wiki includes translation pages from mediawiki and the license requires "ShareAlike".

Originally Posted by Wilbert

The old wiki is not supported anymore and will be disbanded when everything is transferred to Mediawiki.

Do you think it is better to make the old wiki uneditable when it is back?
If it is not supported anymore, there is no need to be edited by anyone incl. spammers

[Fizick]

Originally Posted by stickboy

...
BTW, is there anything different that would make it easier to keep the offline AviSynth documentation synchronized with the online wiki pages?

What is the way to sync them?
Suppose, IanB added some nice feature, he updated the feature.cpp and feature.htm at CVS tree (I am sure he works offline and will not update WiKi )

Suppose, the feature.wiki was previously updated by some brave man who know avisynth better than IanB

How these changes will be in sync?

My opinion: internal functions (and syntax) must be read-only at wiki.

[foxyshadis]

Originally Posted by Fizick

7. Final (main) question. I hope, avisynth.grg will be available soon.
But may be simply forget about mediawiki? It is almost empty and I do not see volonters to support 3 types of docu.

I find mediawiki by far the most accessible of the different modes of documentation. I would actually go so far as to prefer mediawiki as the first and only source of all official documentation changes. (What is the word for that?)

Why would avisynth docs be non-commercial? Avisynth itself allows commercial use, after all, so they should be in sync. And my personal view is that very basic avisynth script reference has no need to be under any kind of restrictive, gnu-style license, because there's no way to use it without. (And if you release a video encoded with avisynth, having used the documentation, are you required to then post your script and the full avisynth documentation next to the video?) I've never seen a script released under any kind of license, because the only people who actually care about guarding their "secret scripts" are a handful of paranoid fansubbers, and there's no way to compile scripts into binary (unless they're compiled right into a C program). The general intent of people like Didée when releasing scripts has always seemed to be releasing into the public domain, even if that isn't explicit.

Since you guys decided on GPL for simplesample, then the source code in wiki topics on creating plugins should presumably also be GPL. (I disagree with GPL for code and api samples, but I guess that isn't my business.)

[Wilbert]

"just copyrigted" work con not be copied and distributed.

Sure it can. The copyright holders (of the documentation) can do whatever they want (and we all agreed silently upon allowing copying and distribution of the documentation).

Official distribution is at sourceforge, with docs included.
(only GPL was stated at install).

Just because you see GPL during install, or that the docs are hosted as sourceforge, doesn't make them GPL. One of the reasons is that GPL is *meant* for code and not for documentation (although apparently it is allowed according to fsf, but i bet most people don't know that).

If we want to license the documentation, we should start a discussion about it. Like foxyhadis i'm not in favor of it, since i don't see yet why it should be necessary or advantageous.

Internal function decriptions and syntax.htm are certainly GPL.
(written by Ben, sh0dan, ...)

Nope, they are not. See above.

What is the way to sync them?
Suppose, IanB added some nice feature, he updated the feature.cpp and feature.htm at CVS tree (I am sure he works offline and will not update WiKi )

Suppose, the feature.wiki was previously updated by some brave man who know avisynth better than IanB

How these changes will be in sync?

My opinion: internal functions (and syntax) must be read-only at wiki.

I disagree with this. Besides, while IanB edits the offline docs, i know that Sh0dan and Richard always edit the online docs first. Usually i copy and paste all the stuff back and forth when necessary. Yes, it's not ideal, but i prefer this because other people make corrections to the online docs too and i don't want to make this impossible. I think high quality docs is more important than 100% synchronization.

[Fizick]

Wilbert,
From GPL license text:

0. This License applies to any program or other work ....

Of course, you may give to us some additional permissions with updated or additional license.

It is hard for me to work with wiki (i work mostly off-line).
Anyway, I will try contribute and will ask stupid question under license terms your choice!

By the way, what version did you use as a base version of docs at mediawiki?
v2.56? some beta v2.57? or some alpha v2.6?
And what version must (will) be at mediwiki?
Latest current beta? or latest official ? or both?

Foxishadis,
FilterSDK was not at mediawiki (and so it is not under new license.)
Probably you are right about users-added part.
Some simpler "attribution" license like CreativeCommons.org "by"-license or BSD, X11, MIT license?
But please ask Didee's permission to place his script anyway

And I do not remember what I said about license terms of my plugins documentation.