On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 11:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Colin Charles wrote: > > >On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 09:10 +0100, Gavin Henry wrote: > > > > > >>How does http://ubuntuguide.org/ stack up against our fedorafaq.org? > >> > >> > > > >Its not ours > > > > Thats the key point here. I am not sure what we can do about it. > Obviously we cant link to the FAQ and call it official for legal reasons > but we can maybe pick the legally and idealogically safe questions and > put in fedora.redhat.com/docs but that wouldnt serve as the canonical > resource that it should be. The other choice would be to totally ignore > it and let it continue as it is. any other ideas? Everyone seems to be correct as to why this FAQ is "officially unofficial." IANAL, TINLA. (I like how those sound when spoken) *If* the content in fedorafaq.org is freely licensed (FDL or CC without or appropriate restrictions), and *If* someone wants to cherry-pick the best (safest) answers to carry over into a sanctioned FAQ, *Then* we would have to attribute within the derived FAQ where it came from. I think that might be OK. We could even work with the fedorafaq.org maintainer to make it easier to do this. We just can't link to their FAQ with problematic content, or include that content within ours. If there is interest in this, I will talk with Red Hat legal to get their go-ahead/caveats. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 Red Hat SELinux Guide http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
