[erlang-questions] Erlang documentation cleanup (PREV: R13B01 modules, quick reference)

[Michael Turner]

>I believe the Erlang doc is very thorough and has lots of details, but
>is mainly opaque to new users and a disaster in usability.

I would say "translucent at best" rather than "opaque", and
"unnecessarily limited" rather than "a disaster".  But that's
because I'm feeling diplomatic and forgiving at the moment.  (Maybe it
was that drink I had with dinner.  In a few hours, I'm sure, I'll be
back to my usual snarling, irritable self.)

> The effort
>deployed at http://erlapi.prepor.ru/docs/ is already an impressive
>amelioration and makes searching through the docs 10 times easier
>(thanks to Andrew Rudenko).

I notice that Rudenko doesn't reproduce any Ericsson copyright notices. 
That's awfully brave of him.

But his legal transgression does have the virtue of forcing the question:
What rights do we have to republish the documentation in any modified
form anyway?  I've looked at the Erlang license, but it seems to apply
only to the code, not the documentation.  Presumably, then, the
documentation is copyright Ericsson A.B. and nothing else -- hence
available only on terms more restrictive (implicitly, at least) than
those placed on us by the Erlang license with respect to the code.

There's much in the documentation I'd like to fix -- typos, various
grammatical infelicities -- but I'm not sure how I can get involved
without stepping on Ericsson toes.  Can I submit my edits to the bugs
list, in standard patchfile format?  Is that how it's usually done?  Is
there a "usually"?

-michael turner