On 01/18/15 22:55, Peter wrote:
> On 01/19/2015 10:51 AM, Tim wrote:
>> Just my two cents: Anyone thought of asking Red Hat to use
>> documentation? I think they are getting much from the community so
>> to copy public accessible documentation when permitted by RH could be
>> an easy way.
>>
>> Why not giving that a try?
>
> There's no need to ask them, they've already given permission:
>
>> Copyright © 2014 Red Hat, Inc.
>> This document is licensed by Red Hat under the Creative Commons
>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If you distribute this
>> document, or a modified version of it, you must provide attribution
>> to Red Hat, Inc. and provide a link to the original. If the document
>> is modified, all Red Hat trademarks must be removed.
>
> I'd say that's good enough.
>
>
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
Well then there appears to be no reason to not go with a version of my
initial suggestion.
State what CentOS is and what it's sources are. State that there may be
some minor divergence between the behavior of CantOS and the Red Hat
documentation. You can explain why if you feel that it's required.
Attribute the documentation to Red Hat.
Provide a link to the original Red Hat documentation as required in
their copyright statement.
By taking these steps we would be exceeding the requirements of the
license in that we are providing the attribution and the link even
though we are not distributing the document, or a modified version of it.
By providing a link to the documentation we would no more be
distributing the documentation than Google would be distributing the
Weather Channel by providing a link to it in their search results.
--
_
°v°
/(_)\
^ ^ Mark LaPierre
Registered Linux user No #267004
https://linuxcounter.net/
****
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
