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@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
