http://www.centos.org/docs
 

Hi,
Why does http://www.centos.org/docs not point to say this for example:

http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/index.html

The latter is more comprehensive. The links that
http://www.centos.org/docs contains all have "upstream" labels on the
reading material, so I'm guessing the trademark boundries are not being
crossed.

Regards,

Paul (Crunch)
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

http://www.centos.org/docs
 

On 04/04/2012 07:53 PM, Paul (Crunch) wrote:
> Hi,
> Why does http://www.centos.org/docs not point to say this for example:
>
> http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/index.html
>
> The latter is more comprehensive. The links that
> http://www.centos.org/docs contains all have "upstream" labels on the
> reading material, so I'm guessing the trademark boundries are not being
> crossed.

docs is an interesting subject.

Docs we host, cant imply that the CentOS distro is the same as RHEL in
everyway. We can however say that its built from the same sources and
*should* be similar enough that all docs can apply.

Its a case of someone putting in a bit of time, downloading the docs for
EL6 from redhat.com - sanitising them, making sure the images and all TM
objects are handled correctly, the right disclaimer is added to the
footer of the pages, and we can host that on www.centos.org/docs

Looks like you quite nicely found yourself a niche issue that is waiting
for a solution, and once solved can be a nice contribution as well.

If you need resources, on the machine side of things - just say so, and
I can get something setup. Could you also send through two more things :

1) an intro about yourself, a brief snippet on history and what you are
doing with CentOS : send that to this list


2) send me an ssh pub key to use for machine access: send that to only
to one of us on the infra team, not to the list :) Although, its the pub
component.. so putting that on the list should not normally be an issue.


--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

http://www.centos.org/docs
 

On 04/05/2012 07:26 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
> Docs we host, cant imply that the CentOS distro is the same as RHEL in
> everyway. We can however say that its built from the same sources and
> *should* be similar enough that all docs can apply.
I had a look at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ .
Interesting indeed, possibly boarding on absurd? The way you have
described it has a slightly more utility. As it says, we need to refer
to licensor(upstream) as original authors in the adaptation yet can not
imply that they endorse the adaptation.
>
> Its a case of someone putting in a bit of time, downloading the docs for
> EL6 from redhat.com - sanitising them, making sure the images and all TM
> objects are handled correctly, the right disclaimer is added to the
> footer of the pages, and we can host that on www.centos.org/docs
For starters, I propose replacing all occurrences of upstream's name and
replace all the upstream logos with CentOS ones. Somewhere near the end
of the document include the link to the original document.
>
> Looks like you quite nicely found yourself a niche issue that is waiting
> for a solution, and once solved can be a nice contribution as well.
Thanks, glad to help.
>
> If you need resources, on the machine side of things - just say so, and
> I can get something setup. Could you also send through two more things :
I should be fine on the machine side of things, thanks. I can do most of
the dev work on my machine but I will probably need somewhere to ftp the
files to so that people can get to them.
>
> 1) an intro about yourself, a brief snippet on history and what you are
> doing with CentOS : send that to this list
>
>
> 2) send me an ssh pub key to use for machine access: send that to only
> to one of us on the infra team, not to the list :) Although, its the pub
> component.. so putting that on the list should not normally be an issue.
I think leave the ssh for now, I don't see the need. At most an ftp
account with apache pointing at the directory, so that people can get to
files easy enough. If it's good with you.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

http://www.centos.org/docs
 

Hi,

On 04/06/2012 09:04 PM, Crunch wrote:
> For starters, I propose replacing all occurrences of upstream's name and
> replace all the upstream logos with CentOS ones. Somewhere near the end
> of the document include the link to the original document.

Do we need to do that ? Can we reduce the work a bit by saying :
"Here are the upstream docs, we build from the same sources and aim to
deliver the same functionality so things should apply the same to our
linux distro as well?'. And add a note to this effect on the bottom of
every page ( and maybe put in the CentOS Blue banner to the top ).

> I think leave the ssh for now, I don't see the need. At most an ftp
> account with apache pointing at the directory, so that people can get to
> files easy enough. If it's good with you.

fair enough, lets get something up once there is something to look at.


--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

http://www.centos.org/docs
 

On 04/06/2012 08:08 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 04/06/2012 09:04 PM, Crunch wrote:
>> For starters, I propose replacing all occurrences of upstream's name and
>> replace all the upstream logos with CentOS ones. Somewhere near the end
>> of the document include the link to the original document.
> Do we need to do that ? Can we reduce the work a bit by saying :
> "Here are the upstream docs, we build from the same sources and aim to
> deliver the same functionality so things should apply the same to our
> linux distro as well?'. And add a note to this effect on the bottom of
> every page ( and maybe put in the CentOS Blue banner to the top ).
It could be a nice touch. Once it's done, the whole lot could act as a
sort of template for future alterations so it wouldn't be as much
effort. We can give it a go with one and if it turns out to be a
schlep, we leave it.
>
>> I think leave the ssh for now, I don't see the need. At most an ftp
>> account with apache pointing at the directory, so that people can get to
>> files easy enough. If it's good with you.
> fair enough, lets get something up once there is something to look at.
>
>
I'll send you the file(s).
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

http://www.centos.org/docs
 

On 04/06/2012 08:08 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
<snip>

Hi All

Some comments on the foot note for the documentation at
http://www.centos.org/docs. The comments are with regard to the open
commons license that comes with the original documentation.
--------------------------------------------------------------
*Note:* This documentation is provided {and copyrighted} by *Red Hat®,
Inc.* and is released via the Open Publication License. The copyright
holder has added the further requirement that /Distribution of
substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without
the explicit permission of the copyright holder/. The *CentOS project*
redistributes these original works (in their unmodified form) as a
reference for *CentOS-5* because *CentOS-5* is built from publicly
available, open source SRPMS. The documentation is unmodified to be
compliant with upstream distribution policy. Neither *CentOS-5* nor the
*CentOS Project* are in any way affiliated with or sponsored by *Red
Hat®, Inc.*
-------------------------------------------------------------

1) Why if the original document was licensed with an "open commons"
license is the document being relicensed as an "open publication" license.
2) Why does the foot note say that you can't modify the document? "open
commons" states that you can do anything you like to the document so
long as it retains a reference to the original document and licensor.

Assuming that one could actually distribute the documentation as I
described in points (2) above:

1) Would it be right to relabel their documentation as CentOS after they
worked so hard on it.
2) The howto documentation style seems to be more practical or have
more utility. Although, more may be better when it comes to information.

After thinking about this, CentOS(your) project goals and KB's comments,
maybe keeping the current style of http://www.centos.org/docs is not
such a bad idea. Although I'm not to sure the foot note is in line with
the original license.

Regards,

Paul R.

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

http://www.centos.org/docs
 

On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 14:44 -0300, Crunch wrote:
> ...
> 1) Why if the original document was licensed with an "open commons"
> license is the document being relicensed as an "open publication" license.

I think Red Hat changed their license since that footer was written.

> 2) Why does the foot note say that you can't modify the document? "open
> commons" states that you can do anything you like to the document so
> long as it retains a reference to the original document and licensor.
>
> Assuming that one could actually distribute the documentation as I
> described in points (2) above:
>
> 1) Would it be right to relabel their documentation as CentOS after they
> worked so hard on it.
> 2) The howto documentation style seems to be more practical or have
> more utility. Although, more may be better when it comes to information.

There are pieces of the RHEL manuals that reference pieces that don't
exist in CentOS. RHN being one example. Changing those pieces makes
sense.

HowTos explain a process which is usually abbreviated for a specific
or narrow use-case. Manuals can discuss theory and be a reference.

The HowTos, as they exist, don't store well on an e-reader. The RHEL
manuals are offered in an epub format in an apparent attempt to be
stored on an e-reader or printed.

If we change anything, we should change the graphics and re-distribute
the changed version.

> After thinking about this, CentOS(your) project goals and KB's comments,
> maybe keeping the current style of http://www.centos.org/docs is not
> such a bad idea. Although I'm not to sure the foot note is in line with
> the original license.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul R.

I agree that modifying and subsequently maintaining the manuals is a
rather large project. That isn't to say I'm advocating either for or
against.


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

http://www.centos.org/docs
 

On 04/20/2012 03:16 PM, Ed Heron wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 14:44 -0300, Crunch wrote:
>> ...
>> 1) Why if the original document was licensed with an "open commons"
>> license is the document being relicensed as an "open publication" license.
> I think Red Hat changed their license since that footer was written.
I thought that might be. Thanks for clearing that up. The other
possibility was that a "new" license included some extra constraints but
I wasn't to sure if that was allowed. Instead of trying to find the
answer in the license itself, I thought it would be simpler to ask, and
it was.
>> 2) Why does the foot note say that you can't modify the document? "open
>> commons" states that you can do anything you like to the document so
>> long as it retains a reference to the original document and licensor.
>>
>> Assuming that one could actually distribute the documentation as I
>> described in points (2) above:
>>
>> 1) Would it be right to relabel their documentation as CentOS after they
>> worked so hard on it.
>> 2) The howto documentation style seems to be more practical or have
>> more utility. Although, more may be better when it comes to information.
> There are pieces of the RHEL manuals that reference pieces that don't
> exist in CentOS. RHN being one example. Changing those pieces makes
> sense.
This is true and I considered it but I also thought that people who use
CentOS would probably have a good idea about what it's history is and
where to go to find that information if they wanted it. I haven't been
around the lists for too long but I wouldn't suspect that there be a
great demand for CentOS documentation specifically. I have never heard
anyone ask for where they can find the CentOS documentation because they
usually know where to find it.
>
> HowTos explain a process which is usually abbreviated for a specific
> or narrow use-case. Manuals can discuss theory and be a reference.
Yes I agree, and it's more than one way of organizing the information
which makes it more accessible. The old linux howtos used to discuss
theory as well but I can see the sense in separating practical and
theory. Although, the redhat manuals do read much as the old linux
howtos did.
>
> The HowTos, as they exist, don't store well on an e-reader. The RHEL
> manuals are offered in an epub format in an apparent attempt to be
> stored on an e-reader or printed.
>
> If we change anything, we should change the graphics and re-distribute
> the changed version.

>> After thinking about this, CentOS(your) project goals and KB's comments,
>> maybe keeping the current style of http://www.centos.org/docs is not
>> such a bad idea. Although I'm not to sure the foot note is in line with
>> the original license.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Paul R.
> I agree that modifying and subsequently maintaining the manuals is a
> rather large project. That isn't to say I'm advocating either for or
> against.
>
I am of the understanding that CentOS exists only to distribute a freely
available version of upstream. In that sense, it is not a full on
distribution that needs or wants to go that far.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

http://www.centos.org/docs
 

On 04/20/2012 06:44 PM, Crunch wrote:
> 1) Why if the original document was licensed with an "open commons"
> license is the document being relicensed as an "open publication" license.

they were not open commons originally, and i guess we just need to
update things at our end to get in line ( and update the docs as well )

> 2) Why does the foot note say that you can't modify the document? "open
> commons" states that you can do anything you like to the document so
> long as it retains a reference to the original document and licensor.

same as above..


--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

http://www.centos.org/docs
 

On 04/20/2012 10:24 PM, Crunch wrote:
> I thought that might be. Thanks for clearing that up. The other
> possibility was that a "new" license included some extra constraints but
> I wasn't to sure if that was allowed. Instead of trying to find the
> answer in the license itself, I thought it would be simpler to ask, and
> it was.

the biggest constrain from our perspective is that those docs are for
RHEL not CentOS. And we dont want the messaging to be 'CentOS is RHEL,
but free'. As Ed pointed out somethings are different in the way we do
mirrors and installer etc, support options are different and the way
some of the code works in the distro is different as well. So while its
ok to say that CentOS should work like whats in the doc, we need enough
adaption to make it clear were not saying CentOS == RHEL.

> This is true and I considered it but I also thought that people who use
> CentOS would probably have a good idea about what it's history is and
> where to go to find that information if they wanted it. I haven't been
> around the lists for too long but I wouldn't suspect that there be a
> great demand for CentOS documentation specifically. I have never heard
> anyone ask for where they can find the CentOS documentation because they
> usually know where to find it.

the fact that www.centos.org/docs isnt updated is something that comes
up a few times a day everyday, in various forums and venues. it would
really be a good problem to have squared away.

Also, what you are saying has been traditionally true - CentOS users
were mostly people who knew the equation; had done their due diligence
and then made a choice to go with CentOS - over the years thats changed
quite a lot to now put us in a state where we have large numbers of
people who have never used Linux before, getting to grips with CentOS.
I'd say about 25 to 40% of our userbase at this point are the non-expert
linux users. in 2008 I would have said that the number was closer to 10%.

>> I agree that modifying and subsequently maintaining the manuals is a
>> rather large project. That isn't to say I'm advocating either for or
>> against.

But, most of it can be automated isnt it ? and the docs are only ever
updated once every 6 to 8 months. Its more of a case of someone taking
the task up, and spending the day or two needed to get to grips with
whats involved and doing 1 doc. We can then scale up the effort from
there. Breaking inertia is key.

> I am of the understanding that CentOS exists only to distribute a freely
> available version of upstream. In that sense, it is not a full on
> distribution that needs or wants to go that far.

Yes and No, There are two different things here. The CentOS Linux
Distribution, and the CentOS Project. The distro aims are in line with
what you mentioned, the Project should and could do a lot more.


--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs