> > Easy: user-contributed documentation for a gem should be under the same
> > license as the original gem (either that, or it should be in the public
> > domain), that way the original author can incorporate good improvements
> > without needing to worry about licensing conflicts.
>
> In fact, you *need* to do this.  You don't have the rights to assume
> that documentation from gems are under any license other than what the
> author stated for them, and if you choose something like CC by S/A
> (which I think is a nice license), you'll need to be sure that every
> single project you host is under license terms compatible with it, or
> get permission from every author to license the combined works as
> such.  Sounds like a painful nightmare to me.
>
> So your choices are to either have user contributions be under the
> public domain or under the original license scheme.  As a package
> maintainer, I'd like to throw my vote towards the original license
> scheme!

That sounds great to me. Any other thoughts/suggestions?

> > 2. Stamp
> > > out the bugs and finish a few outstanding features. Please use the
> > > Rubypub Google Group [2] to submit issues and submit ideas. 3. Figure
> > > out the best method of delivering contributed docs to authors. XML?
> > > JSON? Patches? Ideas are appreciated.
>
> Patches please. The XML and JSON won't be very helpful for quickly
> applying the docs to my files.

+1. My thinking at this point is to export the docs via JSON, and then
use a tool to utilize this data for patches.

-- 
Brian "Chip" Tol
http://www.wiremine.org
wiremine / gmail.com