Re: [Biopython] Biopython Tutorial no longer written in LaTeX, but RST
Iddo Friedberg <[email protected]> Fri, 5 Jan 2024 09:26:45 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.python.bio.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CABm4-MRYAw4wEa3BkCPpEZoMBNi1j1tWfGVYv-m51UN79+GG3g@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 4:51 AM Peter Cock <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 9:09 PM Iddo Friedberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 2:44 PM Peter Cock <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Off list? > > > > Sure. > > I guessed you went off list by mistake. > Yes, sorry. Back on, so everyone can benefit from my keen insights /s > > >> I too used to search it that way. Not sure how well Sphinx's search > >> box works in comparison - but that was a benefit of the single HTML > >> file vs multiple files. > > > > Or the HTML :) Perhaps a one-page HTML document can be > > generated from the RST pages? Or would there be an indexing > > mechanism (less desirable). > > The multi-page HTML has a search function. > It does, but it looks like it does not' limit itself to a specific document subtree: looks like the search is not confined to the, say, cookbook & tutorial only. > > Strangely the single page HTML output does not, but it may as side > effect from the additional warnings Sphinx spits out. > > I think the single page PDF looks like the best bet. > > >> As to the authorship, that crossed my mind too. The Sphinx author > >> field gets used in the footer so short and sweet as it stands seems > >> fine: "© Copyright 1999-2024, The Biopython Contributors." > >> > >> Rather I on this page between the title and the table of contents > >> might work nicely? https://biopython.org/docs/dev/Tutorial/index.html > > > > Yes, I think a named author section would be nice there. And I'm not > > jsut saying that becuase I'm on there ;) but also to preserve some > > sense fo history. > > Grin. > > > We might want to revise the copyright to CC-BY though? > > That would have been a good call in hindsight when we started the > BSD dual licensing process. > > The tutorial is part of the main repository and thus under our > Biopython specific license. We may be able to apply the BSD as > well with all the history contributor agreements (I haven't checked). > So we can write that the docs are also under the Dual Biopython / BSD license, it's good enough, for most practical purposes (reuse & accreditation). The copyright without additions implies no reuse / redistribution. But you can add instead "Copyright 1999-2024, The Biopython Contributors, may be reused under the Biopython License (linked)." > > Peter > -- Iddo Friedberg ++++++++++[>+++>++++++>++++++++>++++++++++>+++++++++++<<<<<-]>>>>++++.> ++++++..----.<<<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.-----------..>>>+.-----. .>-.<<<<--.>>>++.>+++.<+++.----.-.<++++++++++++++++++.>+.>.<++.<<<+.>> >>----.<--.>++++++.<<<<------------------------------------. _______________________________________________ Biopython mailing list - [email protected] https://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biopython