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. > 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. HowTos explain a process which is usually abbreviated for a specific or narrow use-case. Manuals can discuss theory and be a reference. 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.