Hey All,
I just installed the newest version of Firefox that was pushed to production today. When I started Firefox the CentOS 7 Is Here splash screen was displayed. Out of curiosity I clicked on the [Documentation] tab at the top of the screen and got this:
Does anyone else see a problem here?
On 15/01/15 07:05 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
Hey All,
I just installed the newest version of Firefox that was pushed to production today. When I started Firefox the CentOS 7 Is Here splash screen was displayed. Out of curiosity I clicked on the [Documentation] tab at the top of the screen and got this:
Does anyone else see a problem here?
Pfft, looks fine to me. "CentOS 7" is a typo. It's 2009, right?
On 16 January 2015 @00:05 zulu, Mark LaPierre wrote:
Does anyone else see a problem here?
Try https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/ then choose the version on the left.
On 15/01/15 07:27 PM, Darr247 wrote:
On 16 January 2015 @00:05 zulu, Mark LaPierre wrote:
Does anyone else see a problem here?
Try https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/ then choose the version on the left.
While useful, I don't imagine that was Mark's point. CentOS links to a very out of date website. So either the link should be changed or the linked page should be updated.
On 16 January 2015 @00:34 zulu, Digimer wrote:
So either the link should be changed or the linked page should be updated.
Well, until someone rewrites the redhat docs so they don't violate copyright laws, and links to them on that centos.org/docs page, I'll continue perusing and referring to the RHEL 6 and 7 documentation.
On 15/01/15 10:55 PM, Darr247 wrote:
On 16 January 2015 @00:34 zulu, Digimer wrote:
So either the link should be changed or the linked page should be updated.
Well, until someone rewrites the redhat docs so they don't violate copyright laws, and links to them on that centos.org/docs page, I'll continue perusing and referring to the RHEL 6 and 7 documentation.
Totally, which is why I started by saying your link was helpful. :)
On 01/15/15 22:55, Darr247 wrote:
On 16 January 2015 @00:34 zulu, Digimer wrote:
So either the link should be changed or the linked page should be updated.
Well, until someone rewrites the redhat docs so they don't violate copyright laws, and links to them on that centos.org/docs page, I'll continue perusing and referring to the RHEL 6 and 7 documentation. _______________________________________________
Alright then. May I suggest a solution that might satisfy both opinions.
On the documentation page where the links to CentOS [345] are found place a statement to this effect:
"CentOS is functionally equivalent to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and is based on the same code, as released by Red Hat, and rebuilt by the CentOS community." At this point briefly explain the moral conundrum that prevents you from linking directly to the RHEL documentation. Then provide the appropriate link to the appropriate RHEL documentation with the explanation that, "this is a link to the documentation for RHEL upon which CentOS is based." There you have a disclaimer as well as an attribution.
What say yea to this proposal?
An undocumented computer program differs only slightly from a video game. Both are filled with mysteries, puzzles, and unanswered questions.
On 17/01/15 09:14 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
On 01/15/15 22:55, Darr247 wrote:
On 16 January 2015 @00:34 zulu, Digimer wrote:
So either the link should be changed or the linked page should be updated.
Well, until someone rewrites the redhat docs so they don't violate copyright laws, and links to them on that centos.org/docs page, I'll continue perusing and referring to the RHEL 6 and 7 documentation. _______________________________________________
Alright then. May I suggest a solution that might satisfy both opinions.
On the documentation page where the links to CentOS [345] are found place a statement to this effect:
"CentOS is functionally equivalent to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and is based on the same code, as released by Red Hat, and rebuilt by the CentOS community." At this point briefly explain the moral conundrum that prevents you from linking directly to the RHEL documentation. Then provide the appropriate link to the appropriate RHEL documentation with the explanation that, "this is a link to the documentation for RHEL upon which CentOS is based." There you have a disclaimer as well as an attribution.
What say yea to this proposal?
An undocumented computer program differs only slightly from a video game. Both are filled with mysteries, puzzles, and unanswered questions.
I think it's a fantastic idea. Any CentOS people care to comment?
On 01/18/2015 02:14 AM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
On 01/15/15 22:55, Darr247 wrote:
On 16 January 2015 @00:34 zulu, Digimer wrote:
So either the link should be changed or the linked page should be updated.
Well, until someone rewrites the redhat docs so they don't violate copyright laws, and links to them on that centos.org/docs page, I'll continue perusing and referring to the RHEL 6 and 7 documentation. _______________________________________________
Alright then. May I suggest a solution that might satisfy both opinions.
On the documentation page where the links to CentOS [345] are found place a statement to this effect:
"CentOS is functionally equivalent to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
but its not.
and is based on the same code, as released by Red Hat, and rebuilt by the CentOS community." At this point briefly explain the moral
that does not make it functionally equivalent.
conundrum that prevents you from linking directly to the RHEL documentation. Then provide the appropriate link to the appropriate RHEL documentation with the explanation that, "this is a link to the documentation for RHEL upon which CentOS is based." There you have a disclaimer as well as an attribution.
What say yea to this proposal?
why not just say 'CentOS Linux is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux sources as released via git.centos.org and therefore documentation applicable to Red Hat Enterprise Linux should largely apply to CentOS Linux of the same version, architecture and release.'
And leave it at that ( note: no linking, therefore no assertions of compatibility or equivallencce ).
An undocumented computer program differs only slightly from a video game. Both are filled with mysteries, puzzles, and unanswered questions.
Therefore, lets do the right thing - get the means together in community to adapt those docs, brand them accordingly and publish them under centos.org
On 01/18/15 03:45, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 01/18/2015 02:14 AM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
On 01/15/15 22:55, Darr247 wrote:
On 16 January 2015 @00:34 zulu, Digimer wrote:
So either the link should be changed or the linked page should be updated.
Well, until someone rewrites the redhat docs so they don't violate copyright laws, and links to them on that centos.org/docs page, I'll continue perusing and referring to the RHEL 6 and 7 documentation. _______________________________________________
Alright then. May I suggest a solution that might satisfy both opinions.
On the documentation page where the links to CentOS [345] are found place a statement to this effect:
"CentOS is functionally equivalent to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
but its not.
and is based on the same code, as released by Red Hat, and rebuilt by the CentOS community." At this point briefly explain the moral
that does not make it functionally equivalent.
conundrum that prevents you from linking directly to the RHEL documentation. Then provide the appropriate link to the appropriate RHEL documentation with the explanation that, "this is a link to the documentation for RHEL upon which CentOS is based." There you have a disclaimer as well as an attribution.
What say yea to this proposal?
why not just say 'CentOS Linux is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux sources as released via git.centos.org and therefore documentation applicable to Red Hat Enterprise Linux should largely apply to CentOS Linux of the same version, architecture and release.'
And leave it at that ( note: no linking, therefore no assertions of compatibility or equivallencce ).
An undocumented computer program differs only slightly from a video game. Both are filled with mysteries, puzzles, and unanswered questions.
Therefore, lets do the right thing - get the means together in community to adapt those docs, brand them accordingly and publish them under centos.org
I'm up for that. My time is a bit limited but I would like to help. Can anyone hold my hand a bit while I learn the ropes? I'm not much good at C or C++ but I can write documentation. Especially if it's already pretty much written and all I have to do is copy and paste.
First thing we will need is someone who is willing and able to head up this effort.
On 18 January 2015 @19:07 zulu, Mark LaPierre wrote:
good at C or C++ but I can write documentation. Especially if it's already pretty much written and all I have to do is copy and paste.
Unless you get RH's permission in writing to do so, in advance, I'm pretty-sure copy and paste does not meet the "so it doesn't violate copyright law" criterion I mentioned earlier.
Even if you're not doing it for any type of monetary gain... the DMCA and WIPO loom large.
Just my two cents: Anyone thought of asking Red Hat to use documentation? I think they are getting much from the community so to copy public accessible documentation when permitted by RH could be an easy way.
Why not giving that a try?
Am 18. Januar 2015 20:56:59 MEZ, schrieb Darr247 darr247@gmail.com:
On 18 January 2015 @19:07 zulu, Mark LaPierre wrote:
good at C or C++ but I can write documentation. Especially if it's already pretty much written and all I have to do is copy and paste.
Unless you get RH's permission in writing to do so, in advance, I'm pretty-sure copy and paste does not meet the "so it doesn't violate copyright law" criterion I mentioned earlier.
Even if you're not doing it for any type of monetary gain... the DMCA and WIPO loom large. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 01/19/2015 10:51 AM, Tim wrote:
Just my two cents: Anyone thought of asking Red Hat to use documentation? I think they are getting much from the community so to copy public accessible documentation when permitted by RH could be an easy way.
Why not giving that a try?
There's no need to ask them, they've already given permission:
Copyright © 2014 Red Hat, Inc. This document is licensed by Red Hat under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If you distribute this document, or a modified version of it, you must provide attribution to Red Hat, Inc. and provide a link to the original. If the document is modified, all Red Hat trademarks must be removed.
I'd say that's good enough.
Peter
On 01/18/15 22:55, Peter wrote:
On 01/19/2015 10:51 AM, Tim wrote:
Just my two cents: Anyone thought of asking Red Hat to use documentation? I think they are getting much from the community so to copy public accessible documentation when permitted by RH could be an easy way.
Why not giving that a try?
There's no need to ask them, they've already given permission:
Copyright © 2014 Red Hat, Inc. This document is licensed by Red Hat under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If you distribute this document, or a modified version of it, you must provide attribution to Red Hat, Inc. and provide a link to the original. If the document is modified, all Red Hat trademarks must be removed.
I'd say that's good enough.
Peter _______________________________________________
Well then there appears to be no reason to not go with a version of my initial suggestion.
State what CentOS is and what it's sources are. State that there may be some minor divergence between the behavior of CantOS and the Red Hat documentation. You can explain why if you feel that it's required.
Attribute the documentation to Red Hat.
Provide a link to the original Red Hat documentation as required in their copyright statement.
By taking these steps we would be exceeding the requirements of the license in that we are providing the attribution and the link even though we are not distributing the document, or a modified version of it.
By providing a link to the documentation we would no more be distributing the documentation than Google would be distributing the Weather Channel by providing a link to it in their search results.
On 01/19/2015 05:18 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
Well then there appears to be no reason to not go with a version of my initial suggestion.
State what CentOS is and what it's sources are. State that there may be some minor divergence between the behavior of CantOS and the Red Hat documentation. You can explain why if you feel that it's required.
Attribute the documentation to Red Hat.
Provide a link to the original Red Hat documentation as required in their copyright statement.
By taking these steps we would be exceeding the requirements of the license in that we are providing the attribution and the link even though we are not distributing the document, or a modified version of it.
By providing a link to the documentation we would no more be distributing the documentation than Google would be distributing the Weather Channel by providing a link to it in their search results.
I don't see why we couldn't, or shouldn't modify it, though, so logn as we first make sure to comply with the rest of the license provisions, ie remove RedHat trademarks, give appropriate attribution and link to the original docs, then we can go ahead and modify it wiki-style so that it reflects the differences in CentOS.
Peter
On 19/01/15 12:37 AM, Peter wrote:
On 01/19/2015 05:18 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
Well then there appears to be no reason to not go with a version of my initial suggestion.
State what CentOS is and what it's sources are. State that there may be some minor divergence between the behavior of CantOS and the Red Hat documentation. You can explain why if you feel that it's required.
Attribute the documentation to Red Hat.
Provide a link to the original Red Hat documentation as required in their copyright statement.
By taking these steps we would be exceeding the requirements of the license in that we are providing the attribution and the link even though we are not distributing the document, or a modified version of it.
By providing a link to the documentation we would no more be distributing the documentation than Google would be distributing the Weather Channel by providing a link to it in their search results.
I don't see why we couldn't, or shouldn't modify it, though, so logn as we first make sure to comply with the rest of the license provisions, ie remove RedHat trademarks, give appropriate attribution and link to the original docs, then we can go ahead and modify it wiki-style so that it reflects the differences in CentOS.
Peter
A wiki format would be fantastic.
On 1/18/2015 9:37 PM, Peter wrote:
I don't see why we couldn't, or shouldn't modify it, though, so logn as we first make sure to comply with the rest of the license provisions, ie remove RedHat trademarks, give appropriate attribution and link to the original docs, then we can go ahead and modify it wiki-style so that it reflects the differences in CentOS.
On 01/18/2015 09:55 PM, Peter wrote:
On 01/19/2015 10:51 AM, Tim wrote:
Just my two cents: Anyone thought of asking Red Hat to use documentation? I think they are getting much from the community so to copy public accessible documentation when permitted by RH could be an easy way.
Why not giving that a try?
There's no need to ask them, they've already given permission:
Copyright © 2014 Red Hat, Inc. This document is licensed by Red Hat under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If you distribute this document, or a modified version of it, you must provide attribution to Red Hat, Inc. and provide a link to the original. If the document is modified, all Red Hat trademarks must be removed.
I'd say that's good enough.
It is good enough to take the Documentation and start taking out their trademarks, etc.
And editing content too .. anything that is talking about RHN (for example) is NA.
The bottom line is, if you want to use the Red Hat documentation it is is good as a reference, but it is not totally applicable. You know where to find it. But as CentOS is community supported, the community can (and should) take the documentation and turn it into CentOS specific versions.
The CentOS project can facilitate an area in git that can be used for this and the centos-docs mailing list can be used as well.
On 18/01/15 03:45 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 01/18/2015 02:14 AM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
On 01/15/15 22:55, Darr247 wrote:
On 16 January 2015 @00:34 zulu, Digimer wrote:
So either the link should be changed or the linked page should be updated.
Well, until someone rewrites the redhat docs so they don't violate copyright laws, and links to them on that centos.org/docs page, I'll continue perusing and referring to the RHEL 6 and 7 documentation. _______________________________________________
Alright then. May I suggest a solution that might satisfy both opinions.
On the documentation page where the links to CentOS [345] are found place a statement to this effect:
"CentOS is functionally equivalent to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
but its not.
and is based on the same code, as released by Red Hat, and rebuilt by the CentOS community." At this point briefly explain the moral
that does not make it functionally equivalent.
conundrum that prevents you from linking directly to the RHEL documentation. Then provide the appropriate link to the appropriate RHEL documentation with the explanation that, "this is a link to the documentation for RHEL upon which CentOS is based." There you have a disclaimer as well as an attribution.
What say yea to this proposal?
why not just say 'CentOS Linux is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux sources as released via git.centos.org and therefore documentation applicable to Red Hat Enterprise Linux should largely apply to CentOS Linux of the same version, architecture and release.'
And leave it at that ( note: no linking, therefore no assertions of compatibility or equivallencce ).
An undocumented computer program differs only slightly from a video game. Both are filled with mysteries, puzzles, and unanswered questions.
Therefore, lets do the right thing - get the means together in community to adapt those docs, brand them accordingly and publish them under centos.org
Is it legal to copy the documentation and replace trademarks? IANAL... :)
Alternatively, if we can't copy RHEL docs, can we copy Fedora 12~13, 18~19 docs and adapt as needed? Or would be have to write everything from scratch?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/18/2015 12:29 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 18/01/15 03:45 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 01/18/2015 02:14 AM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
On 01/15/15 22:55, Darr247 wrote:
On 16 January 2015 @00:34 zulu, Digimer wrote:
So either the link should be changed or the linked page should be updated.
Well, until someone rewrites the redhat docs so they don't violate copyright laws, and links to them on that centos.org/docs page, I'll continue perusing and referring to the RHEL 6 and 7 documentation. _______________________________________________
Alright then. May I suggest a solution that might satisfy both
opinions.
On the documentation page where the links to CentOS [345] are found place a statement to this effect:
"CentOS is functionally equivalent to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
but its not.
and is based on the same code, as released by Red Hat, and rebuilt by the CentOS community." At this point briefly explain the moral
that does not make it functionally equivalent.
conundrum that prevents you from linking directly to the RHEL documentation. Then provide the appropriate link to the appropriate RHEL documentation with the explanation that, "this is a link to the documentation for RHEL upon which CentOS is based." There you have a disclaimer as well as an attribution.
What say yea to this proposal?
why not just say 'CentOS Linux is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux sources as released via git.centos.org and therefore documentation applicable to Red Hat Enterprise Linux should largely apply to CentOS Linux of the same version, architecture and release.'
And leave it at that ( note: no linking, therefore no assertions of compatibility or equivallencce ).
An undocumented computer program differs only slightly from a video game. Both are filled with mysteries, puzzles, and unanswered
questions.
Therefore, lets do the right thing - get the means together in community to adapt those docs, brand them accordingly and publish them under centos.org
Is it legal to copy the documentation and replace trademarks? IANAL... :)
Alternatively, if we can't copy RHEL docs, can we copy Fedora 12~13,
18~19 docs and adapt as needed? Or would be have to write everything from scratch?
Yes, you can absolutely use the sources for Fedora Docs, providing the already stated measures to deal with the trademark issues are performed. Everything is at https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/docs/ .
I would encourage anyone interested to delve in a bit more than copy + regex though. There are entities to interpolate, for example; we'd take patches to replace "Fedora" with "&PRODUCT;" to make things easier for the CentOS folks, for example - and in many places, you'll see things like that already, because RHEL docs are downstream too. A CentOS publican brand would give the derivative books a distinct identity without diverging the sources. Or, some CentOS writers might want to Storage Administration Guide, which hasn't been updated for a Fedora in quite a while, and most updates for el7 would be great for the current Fedora users too.
I'm sure there are many areas where active collaboration would be a win for both distributions. At this point, maybe the centos-docs and/or docs@lists.fp.o lists would be a better venue?
- -- - -- Pete Travis - Fedora Docs Project Leader - 'randomuser' on freenode - immanetize@fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 19:05 -0500, Mark LaPierre wrote:
Hey All,
I just installed the newest version of Firefox that was pushed to production today. When I started Firefox the CentOS 7 Is Here splash screen was displayed. Out of curiosity I clicked on the [Documentation] tab at the top of the screen and got this:
Does anyone else see a problem here?
Someone has stolen something :-)
On Thu, January 15, 2015 6:50 pm, Always Learning wrote:
On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 19:05 -0500, Mark LaPierre wrote:
Hey All,
I just installed the newest version of Firefox that was pushed to production today. When I started Firefox the CentOS 7 Is Here splash screen was displayed. Out of curiosity I clicked on the [Documentation] tab at the top of the screen and got this:
Does anyone else see a problem here?
Someone has stolen something :-)
from somebody ;-)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-
Always Learning -
Darr247 -
Digimer -
John R Pierce -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Mark LaPierre -
Pete Travis -
Peter -
Tim -
Valeri Galtsev