FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Docs

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-08-2011, 08:14 PM
Ed Heron
 
Default CentOS 6 (and 5.6) doc on http://www.centos.org/docs

On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 19:01 +0200, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
> Hi documentation team,
>
> As CentOS 6 is now being released to the mirrors, it would be a good
> time to think about putting the accurate documentation on
> http://www.centos.org/docs
> Red Hat changed their documentation license in the past and they are now
> using the CC-by-SA license.
> My own understanding (but IANAL) is that we can just share the
> documentation , and just linking back to upstream without modifying the
> documentation.
> That would be easier for newer doc as every 'bit' that is CentOS
> specific should/would be in our release note wiki page for that version.
>
> Read the "Legal Notice" section for example on that page :
> http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Deployment_Guide/index.html
>
> As well as the CC-by-SA license here :
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>
> What are your ideas on that ?
>
> Fabian

As a relatively independent project, it is not fair to expect the
upstream provider to bear the network load of serving their documents to
CentOS users.

It is my impression that we could and should 'adapt' the documentation
by removing the upstream provider logos and other marks (as applicable)
and mark the documentation as CentOS documentation. Obviously,
including references to the original document. This would give the
CentOS project the ability to edit out the aspects that are specific to
the upstream product, such as the contract number during install.

The most obvious downside is that any documentation updates released
by the upstream provider would have to be merged into the CentOS
documentation.

The most obvious upside is that we could modify [our version of] the
documentation directly without submitting (though possibly also
submitting) bug reports against the original docs. We would want to
release our modifications with the same CC-by-SA license so others could
use them as appropriate.

I remember a short discussion, on this list, mentioning the change of
license a while back.


_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
 
Old 07-11-2011, 06:03 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default CentOS 6 (and 5.6) doc on http://www.centos.org/docs

On 07/09/2011 04:13 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
>> It is my impression that we could and should 'adapt' the documentation
>> by removing the upstream provider logos and other marks (as applicable)
>> and mark the documentation as CentOS documentation. Obviously,
>> including references to the original document. This would give the
>> CentOS project the ability to edit out the aspects that are specific to
>> the upstream product, such as the contract number during install.
>
> ok, submit a patch / script to do that :-)
>

depending on how much of it can be automated, that would be idea -
otherwise we can import the stuff into a git repo and use that as a base
to work from.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
 
Old 07-11-2011, 09:57 PM
Ralph Angenendt
 
Default CentOS 6 (and 5.6) doc on http://www.centos.org/docs

Am 11.07.11 20:29, schrieb Ed Heron:

> This could create more traffic on the wiki. Is bandwidth or machine
> time a concern?

Document type. The wiki is not really meant to serve, version, edit and
- well - import foreign formats. You can do so if a page needs an
attachement, but I don't really want to use it as storage for foreign
formats.

I don't really know what you all want to do with the documents. We can
use them as is - and as we don't change them contentwise, I'm not sure
why we should change artwork on those.

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
 
Old 07-13-2011, 09:16 PM
Ralph Angenendt
 
Default CentOS 6 (and 5.6) doc on http://www.centos.org/docs

Am 12.07.11 00:04, schrieb Manuel Wolfshant:
> On 07/12/2011 12:57 AM, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>> I don't really know what you all want to do with the documents. We can
>> use them as is - and as we don't change them contentwise, I'm not sure
>> why we should change artwork on those.
>>
> I am more into creating some form of redirect from docs.c.o to
> upstream's relevant docs.

Hm, I really wouldn't like to do that. It doesn't feel good to me to
generate traffic to redhat.com.

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:42 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org