[Centos-docs] howto's and docs from the forums

Tue Oct 3 00:34:54 UTC 2006
Ralph Angenendt <ra+centos at br-online.de>

Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> >I really do mislike the FDL for a wiki - it's much too complicated. It
> >may be great for longer pieces of Documentation, but there's  too much
> >legalese in there. 
> >
> >Seen from that standpoint the CC licenses are much saner and easier to
> >comprehend.
> i've tried to quickly skim through some of these ....
> ... and have no clue which way to swing on this.
> we might need to call in the cavalry on this one :)

The problem I see is: We're already letting those people who want to add
to the wiki jump through several hoops (how did it feel, guys?). If we
now require them to also agree to a license, I'd like to keep that
license as clean (and lean) as possible. 

And in my opinion the CC licenses are much easier to understand. The FDL
also has different subparts available - which of those would you choose?
The "invariable parts" stuff has led some projects to view the FDL as a
non-free license (AFAIR debian had a problem there). On the other hand
the CC licenses are very vague, and the FSF advises you to *not* use
these licenses for documentation or software ...

Do we have a lawyer in the house? Or someone who at least understands
legalese? My english is pretty okay, but legalese is an area which just
blows my mind.

As said: I'd opt for practicability and understandability. I have
nothing political (or anything else) against CC and the FDL. It's just
that I don't understand the FDL - and the license someone puts his stuff
under in the wiki has to be understood by that person before he can

Ralph Angenendt......ra at br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible
Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 München | ....to right-justify any idea, even one
Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other
Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061003/e70de4ff/attachment-0002.sig>