TEKOBYTE wrote:But, if you, xitnalta, are an average example of a
member of the Blender Community, I find that my desire to help, starts
I still regard myself as quite a new member of the community (joined
elysiun.com in August), so I don't believe that I could serve as an
example of the community, which is, I admit it, generally more easy to
deal with and less stubborn than I am sometimes.
But, to be honest again, you rarely gave me any encouraging feedback
for my attempts to help you as well.
I find nothing wrong with the license. If it does not resemble
the GNU FDL, then my goal was accomplished.
For me, that's quite a biased statement. What I remember from the
discussions we had about this, you only seemed to disagree with some
parts of the FDL. On my part, I can only say that I want to give as
much protected freedom to users of my work as possible. This is best
accomplished through a copyleft license, which you apparently can't
The project may seem unorganized right now becasue it is just
starting. Something can not start out as good as it will ever be; it
has to get good through lessons learned from failures.
As I see it, your project has these flaws (that can be corrected): it
has a huge goal, a strange license, and a website that sounds as if
you were going to write everything from scratch.
To address the "huge" problem, you have two possibilities: either
reduce the scope of the project, or making it so attractive that you
get a lot of support. And with the support, you also need a clear
The "license" problem affects the first one: with such a strange
license (which you probably want to refine somewhat anyway) whose
intentions are uncertain (because of the clause that it might change
at any moment), it is difficult to attract the necessary amount of
interested contributors. Especially since many people (I don't say
the majority) support the ideas behind the (copylefted) Free Software
movement. Also, it affects the third issue:
The "from scratch" part is not inherently a problem, but rather a
factor that adds to the other problems (especially the "huge" one).
The simplest remedy would be not to insist on it, but rather look for
existing resources that you could build upon. Now, the license
problem interferes a lot, since the licenses (or in some cases the
makers) of the existing resources will dictate under what conditions
(and license) you can build upon their work. This might also mean
that you had to change your license to comply to these conditions. For
example, if the blender.org documents were going to be GNU FDL (and
it's not very unlikely that they will), you would have to change your
license to the GNU FDL in the case that your work was a derivative of
these documents. I don't think that quoting excerpts would mean
deriving from a document, but that method of work would be surely more
complicated than just enhancing existing material.
The other remedy would again be a very large (and organized) community
To anyone else wanting to offer their advice, please feel
free. Advice and criticism help reduce those failures, and therefore,
reach the goal even faster: to make a great manual.
Maybe I should clarify the first statement of my first post a bit. I
didn't mean to say "oh, you probably informed me, but I give a s* on
that". Reading it again, it looks very close to that, but it really
wasn't meant that way. I was just confused that, after my willingness
to help you, you changed the project fundamentally without informing
me by email or PM or whatever. (And besides that, there really is the
possibility that I could have thought it was spam and just deleted it.
I don't waste my time reading messages that have suspiciously looking
What remains to say is: work on your project, I'm absolutely not
against that! You just cannot count on any contributions from my part