On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 21:16 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote: > for good reasons.) Not to mention that none of these Red Hat documents > are licensed in a compatible way content-wise. IIRC, the content is licensed under the OPL without restrictions. Red Hat made sure that our control over the copyright was enough to do this, or we made separate arrangements with the other copyright holders (Sun, AOL). The problem is not the license but the notable absence of source XML. > FDS is a weird subproject that hasn't received a lot of love from the > community, and has been more of a "throw it over the wall" contribution, > albeit a really cool one. I think it is much more than that, it is quite active, and all the development of the enterprise product happens on the tip of CVS in cvs.fedoraproject.org. The problem seems to be more of knitting together the existing FDS community with the Fedora community. Not quite as hard as the idea of knitting jboss.org and Fedora, but still something that needs to be done deliberately. Being close physically to the FDS team and having at one time been the lead content writer for that team, I'd be happy to work on this knitting. Umm, sometime. Soon, maybe even, if we have an imperative. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
