[CentOS-docs] http://www.centos.org/docs

Crunch numbercruncher245 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 20 17:24:44 EDT 2012

On 04/20/2012 03:16 PM, Ed Heron wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 14:44 -0300, Crunch wrote:
>> ...
>> 1) Why if the original document was licensed with an "open commons"
>> license is the document being relicensed as an "open publication" license.
>    I think Red Hat changed their license since that footer was written.
I thought that might be. Thanks for clearing that up. The other 
possibility was that a "new" license included some extra constraints but 
I wasn't to sure if that was allowed. Instead of trying to find the 
answer in the license itself, I thought it would be simpler to ask, and 
it was.
>> 2) Why does the foot note say that you can't modify the document? "open
>> commons" states that you can do anything you like to the document so
>> long as it retains a reference to the original document and licensor.
>> Assuming that one could actually distribute the documentation as I
>> described in points (2) above:
>> 1) Would it be right to relabel their documentation as CentOS after they
>> worked so hard on it.
>> 2) The howto documentation style seems to  be more practical or have
>> more utility. Although, more may be better when it comes to information.
>    There are pieces of the RHEL manuals that reference pieces that don't
> exist in CentOS.  RHN being one example.  Changing those pieces makes
> sense.
This is true and I considered it but I also thought that people who use 
CentOS would probably have a good idea about what it's history is and 
where to go to find that information if they wanted it. I haven't been 
around the lists for too long but I wouldn't suspect that there be a 
great demand for CentOS documentation specifically. I have never heard 
anyone ask for where they can find the CentOS documentation because they 
usually know where  to find it.
>    HowTos explain a process which is usually abbreviated for a specific
> or narrow use-case.  Manuals can discuss theory and be a reference.\
Yes I agree, and it's more than one way of organizing the information 
which makes it more  accessible. The old linux howtos used to discuss 
theory as well but I can see the sense in separating practical and 
theory. Although, the redhat manuals do read much as the old linux 
howtos did.
>    The HowTos, as they exist, don't store well on an e-reader.  The RHEL
> manuals are offered in an epub format in an apparent attempt to be
> stored on an e-reader or printed.
>    If we change anything, we should change the graphics and re-distribute
> the changed version.

>> After thinking about this, CentOS(your) project goals and KB's comments,
>> maybe keeping the current style of http://www.centos.org/docs is not
>> such a bad idea. Although I'm not to sure the foot note is in line with
>> the original license.
>> Regards,
>> Paul R.
>    I agree that modifying and subsequently maintaining the manuals is a
> rather large project.  That isn't to say I'm advocating either for or
> against.
I am of the understanding that CentOS exists only to distribute a freely 
available version of upstream. In that sense, it is not a full on 
distribution that needs or wants to go that far.

More information about the CentOS-docs mailing list