On 19/01/15 12:37 AM, Peter wrote: > On 01/19/2015 05:18 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote: >> Well then there appears to be no reason to not go with a version of my >> initial suggestion. >> >> State what CentOS is and what it's sources are. State that there may be >> some minor divergence between the behavior of CantOS and the Red Hat >> documentation. You can explain why if you feel that it's required. >> >> Attribute the documentation to Red Hat. >> >> Provide a link to the original Red Hat documentation as required in >> their copyright statement. >> >> By taking these steps we would be exceeding the requirements of the >> license in that we are providing the attribution and the link even >> though we are not distributing the document, or a modified version of it. >> >> By providing a link to the documentation we would no more be >> distributing the documentation than Google would be distributing the >> Weather Channel by providing a link to it in their search results. > > I don't see why we couldn't, or shouldn't modify it, though, so logn as > we first make sure to comply with the rest of the license provisions, ie > remove RedHat trademarks, give appropriate attribution and link to the > original docs, then we can go ahead and modify it wiki-style so that it > reflects the differences in CentOS. > > > Peter A wiki format would be fantastic. -- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education?