On 19/01/15 12:37 AM, Peter wrote:
On 01/19/2015 05:18 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
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.
I don't see why we couldn't, or shouldn't modify it, though, so logn as
we first make sure to comply with the rest of the license provisions, ie
remove RedHat trademarks, give appropriate attribution and link to the
original docs, then we can go ahead and modify it wiki-style so that it
reflects the differences in CentOS.
Peter
A wiki format would be fantastic.
--
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
