On 07/08/2011 10:14 PM, Ed Heron wrote: > On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 19:01 +0200, Fabian Arrotin wrote: ><snip> >> 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. Hmm, that was not my plain either : having a local copy served from centos.org machine but with a header/footer on the /docs apache dir to mention that those are Red Hat documentation and have a link to the original source > > 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 :-) > > 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@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
