On 04/21/2012 12:05 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: > 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. Okay. It may be easiest then just to knock something off and see if it is agreeable. The question is how much different is different enough. I'm guessing this has been covered before. In any case the current docs can be used as a point of departure. I do have something I would like you to look at, but I'm not sure sending it to the list is a good idea. The file is 2MB odd. You can download it here: http://www.4shared.com/folder/trOCQ_x3/shared.html Once you've decompressed the archive, point your browser at: docs.redhat.com.adapted/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html-single/6.0_Release_Notes/index.html You can run the following command on this file to get an idea of the context in which the word CentOS is used and where it replaced the old name: egrep -oi 'centos.{0,40}' index.html There are some cases where 'CentOS' and the surrounding text should be removed such as when support is mentioned. ... _______________________________________________ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
