-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/18/2015 12:29 PM, Digimer wrote: > On 18/01/15 03:45 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >> On 01/18/2015 02:14 AM, Mark LaPierre wrote: >>> On 01/15/15 22:55, Darr247 wrote: >>>> On 16 January 2015 @00:34 zulu, Digimer wrote: >>>>> So either the link should be changed or the linked page should be >>>>> updated. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, until someone rewrites the redhat docs so they don't violate >>>> copyright laws, and links to them on that centos.org/docs page, I'll >>>> continue perusing and referring to the RHEL 6 and 7 documentation. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> Alright then. May I suggest a solution that might satisfy both opinions. >>> >>> On the documentation page where the links to CentOS [345] are found >>> place a statement to this effect: >>> >>> "CentOS is functionally equivalent to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) >> >> but its not. >> >>> and is based on the same code, as released by Red Hat, and rebuilt by >>> the CentOS community." At this point briefly explain the moral >> >> that does not make it functionally equivalent. >> >>> conundrum that prevents you from linking directly to the RHEL >>> documentation. Then provide the appropriate link to the appropriate >>> RHEL documentation with the explanation that, "this is a link to the >>> documentation for RHEL upon which CentOS is based." There you have a >>> disclaimer as well as an attribution. >>> >>> What say yea to this proposal? >> >> why not just say 'CentOS Linux is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux >> sources as released via git.centos.org and therefore documentation >> applicable to Red Hat Enterprise Linux should largely apply to CentOS >> Linux of the same version, architecture and release.' >> >> And leave it at that ( note: no linking, therefore no assertions of >> compatibility or equivallencce ). >> >>> An undocumented computer program differs only slightly from a video >>> game. Both are filled with mysteries, puzzles, and unanswered questions. >> >> Therefore, lets do the right thing - get the means together in community >> to adapt those docs, brand them accordingly and publish them under >> centos.org > > Is it legal to copy the documentation and replace trademarks? IANAL... :) > > Alternatively, if we can't copy RHEL docs, can we copy Fedora 12~13, 18~19 docs and adapt as needed? Or would be have to write everything from scratch? > Yes, you can absolutely use the sources for Fedora Docs, providing the already stated measures to deal with the trademark issues are performed. Everything is at https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/docs/ . I would encourage anyone interested to delve in a bit more than copy + regex though. There are entities to interpolate, for example; we'd take patches to replace "Fedora" with "&PRODUCT;" to make things easier for the CentOS folks, for example - and in many places, you'll see things like that already, because RHEL docs are downstream too. A CentOS publican brand would give the derivative books a distinct identity without diverging the sources. Or, some CentOS writers might want to Storage Administration Guide, which hasn't been updated for a Fedora in quite a while, and most updates for el7 would be great for the current Fedora users too. I'm sure there are many areas where active collaboration would be a win for both distributions. At this point, maybe the centos-docs and/or docs at lists.fp.o lists would be a better venue? - -- - -- Pete Travis - Fedora Docs Project Leader - 'randomuser' on freenode - immanetize at fedoraproject.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUvKSfAAoJEL1wZM0+jj2Z86IH/2aAgYYix4d3iJ0O9SEzXh6m DEeD2PvNTigdWjrOIJ9+k32SEXWrdYOhUN4cN/72eHhKkU1XNOqFv90GLlCC85xH 4mDqYpudZfGQ2SbSNYEXtqo63C7/edAWdZ9WiaQRlehHLS0G8H6Cy8aSEsQu9OCU ofg59TDbWmqy7YogPLZWTfoy/NEe+g9taRK0w0Zkv51Qy6sprH1Wl0cKF1FLqVUD 7Q2AOGGKWqmlze4VFpuZMPHhz3ieoge+yTYtUdt0bxFn8ZrXqBq9ldYOG/vSDPJY 5m0MqOdXKXhMy+XNQmrBnfX+C6+kNqFkbNe+7wH9FtOjhdqLJtpdtIKRqw/jQdE= =pYSJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----