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

Sat Apr 21 21:52:00 UTC 2012
Paul R. (Crunch) <numbercruncher245 at gmail.com>

On 04/21/2012 06:39 PM, Paul R. (Crunch) wrote:
> On 04/21/2012 12:05 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> On 04/20/2012 10:24 PM, Crunch wrote:
>>> 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.
>> the biggest constrain from our perspective is that those docs are for
>> RHEL not CentOS. And we dont want the messaging to be 'CentOS is RHEL,
>> but free'. As Ed pointed out somethings are different in the way we do
>> mirrors and installer etc, support options are different and the way
>> some of the code works in the distro is different as well. So while its
>> ok to say that CentOS should work like whats in the doc, we need enough
>> adaption to make it clear were not saying CentOS == RHEL.
> Okay. It may be easiest then just to knock something off and see if it 
> is agreeable. The question is how much different is different enough. 
> I'm guessing this has been covered before. In any case  the current 
> docs can be used as a point of departure.
> I do have something I would like you to look at, but I'm not sure 
> sending it to the list is a good idea. The file is 2MB odd. You can 
> download it here: http://www.4shared.com/folder/trOCQ_x3/shared.html
> Once you've decompressed the archive, point your browser at:
> docs.redhat.com.adapted/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html-single/6.0_Release_Notes/index.html 
> You can run the following command on this file to get an idea of the 
> context in which the word CentOS is used and where it replaced the old 
> name:
> egrep -oi 'centos.{0,40}' index.html
> There are some cases where 'CentOS' and the surrounding text should be 
> removed such as when support is mentioned.
> ...

I do apologize but something occurred to me and I have deleted the file 
from the share. The document breaks the license agreement in its current 
form so distributing it is probably not a good idea. What should we do? 
Send it to one person? I think I'll fix the bits that aren't right and 
put it back later. Will let you know.