> Okay, I've downloaded a copy.

Thanks! Wayback Machine downloader was invaluable (there are well over
1000 HTML files).

> I agree.  I love Org mode, but Markdown is nice, too.  The only drawback
> of not using HTML directly is that it limits what we can express.  For
> my own blog, I write in S-expressions that map directly to HTML for this
> reason.

The HTML-as-S-expressions format actually sounds very reasonable. Maybe
we should first investigate what has the best tooling (or is easiest to
write new tools for). Would something Scribble-like work? That would be
close to HTML-as-Sexprs. Even Texinfo could be a contender - tons of
other Scheme documentation is using it so we'll have to write some tools
to index and render it at some point anyway.

> IANAL, as they say.  But I'm happy to follow their intent.

Agreed, that's the wise and polite way to go.

But if we don't get permission we'd probably have to start a new
cookbook from scratch at some point in order to give up-to-date advice
and cover more implementations. It'd be a shame if users had to keep
switching between two different cookbooks for the same job.

I just realized that we should keep authorship information for each
original wiki page in the scraped versions. I'll see if it's easy to
extract from the tar file. The nice thing with Wiki engines is they
produce very regular HTML markup.