On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Steven Crothers wrote: > You could release your work to something like Github, but > I'm sure the CentOS team doesn't want that... ehh? The CentOS team has been quite clear that its product carries the license of the underlying packages, and then GPL for released CentOS source code; I am aware of no exceptions as to released binary content from the project) CentOS private signing keys have never been released, and will not be, to avoid forged content is the project's name; CentOS' branding changes are all knowable from the SRPMs released; CentOS' trademarks (the brand name, and the logo, are what come to mind) would need to be replaced, but this is straightforward, and as noted, the sources are published SME, and ClearOS, and others have worked forward from a CentOS base for years without objection from the project The only material restriction is that of not falsely representing non-CentOS content as of CentOS origin. 'mash-up's' from some VPS vendors that sell under the 'CentOS' name, but deliver some hacked up knockoff, carrying a mish-mash of cruft, and sending their support load into CentOS channels, are what really raise my hackles I don't know why a VCS such as github is needed for such a small set of revisor CLI control scripts, but it may of course be done The thing that would be galling is if a sub-project author 'hijacked' CentOS mailing lists on a sustained basis, rather than having the honesty to announce and publish and thereafter run their own infrastructure -- El Repo is an example of such a well-run sub-project, off the top of my head; alternatively some have published content under the CC license of the CentOS wiki, and that may well serve here for documenting a revisor recipe. The -docs mailing list is the provided venue for getting rights to slot such content in My $0.02 -- Russ herrold