Though this page may be of more relevance:
https://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/x8664-multi-install-guide/colophon.html
In particular: " Garrett LeSage created the admonition graphics
(note, tip, important, caution, and warning). They may be freely
redistributed with the Red Hat documentation."
Notice the 2nd sentence... it just needs a CentOS staffer to touch
back with RH Legal to confirm it's okay.
All in all... on can read the RHEL doco... it all applies. ;)
Cheers,
Matt.
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 01:51:06 -0500, Matt Shields <mattboston@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Be very careful when it comes to documentation. RH can copyright
> their documentation. They do not have to make the docs open source.
> See the following doc at the top of the page:
> https://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/x8664-multi-install-guide/
>
> --
> Matt Shields
> http://masnetworks.biz
> http://sexydates4u.com
> http://shieldslinux.com
> http://shieldsmedia.com (currently under construction)
> http://shieldsproductions.com (currently under construction)
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:42:31 +1100, Matt Bottrell <mbottrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It's definately a grey area that needs sorting out with RH Legal....
> > However I think you have the crux of the issue Maciej.
> >
> > Cheer,s
> >
> > Matt.
> >
> > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:37:35 +0100 (CET), Maciej ?enczykowski
> > <maze@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I think the main question is - whether changing Red Hat to CentOS
> > > everywhere except in the copyright and noting the change would be
> > > considered a substantial modification...
> > >
> > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Lance Davis wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Michael Best wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Maciej ?>>enczykowski wrote:
> > > > > >>Here read this:
> > > > > >>http://beta.centos.org/centos-4/4.0/docs/html/rhel-ig-x8664-multi-en-4/legalnotice.html
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>-Mike
> > > > >
> > > > > The Open Content license does permit derived works, modified versions
> > > > > must say they are modified, and have bibliographic attribution to the
> > > > > original work.
> > > >
> > > > That is not my understanding having read it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > as in :-
> > > >
> > > > 'Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is
> > > > prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.'
> > > >
> > > > That being an optional overrider on the opencontent license.
> > > >
> > > > as in :-
> > > >
> > > > The author(s) and/or publisher of an Open Publication-licensed document
> > > > may elect certain options by appending language to the reference to or
> > > > copy of the license. ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A. To prohibit distribution of substantively modified versions without the
> > > > explicit permission of the author(s). "Substantive modification" is
> > > > defined as a change to the semantic content of the document, and excludes
> > > > mere changes in format or typographical corrections.
> > > >
> > > > Lance
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CentOS mailing list
> > > CentOS@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CentOS mailing list
> > CentOS@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
