On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Steven Crothers wrote:
> You could release your work to something like Github, but
> I'm sure the CentOS team doesn't want that...
ehh? The CentOS team has been quite clear that its product
carries the license of the underlying packages, and then GPL
for released CentOS source code; I am aware of no exceptions
as to released binary content from the project)
CentOS private signing keys have never been released, and will
not be, to avoid forged content is the project's name; CentOS'
branding changes are all knowable from the SRPMs released;
CentOS' trademarks (the brand name, and the logo, are what
come to mind) would need to be replaced, but this is
straightforward, and as noted, the sources are published
SME, and ClearOS, and others have worked forward from a CentOS
base for years without objection from the project
The only material restriction is that of not falsely
representing non-CentOS content as of CentOS origin.
'mash-up's' from some VPS vendors that sell under the 'CentOS'
name, but deliver some hacked up knockoff, carrying a
mish-mash of cruft, and sending their support load into
CentOS channels, are what really raise my hackles
I don't know why a VCS such as github is needed for such a
small set of revisor CLI control scripts, but it may of course
be done
The thing that would be galling is if a sub-project author
'hijacked' CentOS mailing lists on a sustained basis, rather
than having the honesty to announce and publish and thereafter
run their own infrastructure -- El Repo is an example of such
a well-run sub-project, off the top of my head; alternatively
some have published content under the CC license of the CentOS
wiki, and that may well serve here for documenting a revisor
recipe. The -docs mailing list is the provided venue for
getting rights to slot such content in
My $0.02
-- Russ herrold
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
