[CentOS] Documentation link on new Firefox CentOS 7 splash screen

Mon Jan 19 06:31:01 UTC 2015
Pete Travis <lists at petetravis.com>

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
>>> 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
>> 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
Version: GnuPG v1