On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 13:30, Dave Pawson wrote: > > > I wonder why RH can't see that? > > > ... no > > > > I'm pretty sure they can. However, directing people to places where they > > can (essentially) violate IP rights may be roughly as actionable as > > violating them yourself. > I don't understand. Actionable = someone could start a legal action against Red Hat. If I am a corporate entity that directs you to resources that allow you to knowingly violate Karsten's IP rights, then Karsten may have a legal claim against me. Since I'm not an attorney, I don't know on what exactly that claim would be predicated, but I do know that I would like to avoid that risk where possible. > > I think, frankly, directing people to Google is always best, that way > > they generally end up with the information they want, and it's up to > > them to provide the search parameters. I'm not saying that's the way to > > handle official documentation, I'm only saying it's an alternative > > that's free of legal entanglements. > > And if it leads to yours or my website, > then 'customers' will be happy? > +1 > Who gives a monkeys if its on RH website? > Just because that's where customers expect it. I can't tell from your verbiage whether you're agreeing or not. :-) Customers' expectations for a free, community-supported product should be reasonable. Just because a doc's not on Red Hat's site doesn't invalidate it. The Fedora Docs Project is not going to be one-stop shopping for everything Fedora-related. There will always be other sites that have a particular focus or specialty. > When using Python, > I find it quicker to use google to find > documentation than using the actual documentation index. Does this mean we agree? I'm sorry, now I'm confused! :-) -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE
