http://beta.centos.org/centos-4/4.0/docs/html/rhel-ig-x8664-multi-en-4 et al. feature the upstream vendor rather prominently in the title - is that supposed to be like that? Cheers, MaZe.
Maciej ?enczykowski wrote:> http://beta.centos.org/centos-4/4.0/docs/html/rhel-ig-x8664-multi-en-4 et > al. > > feature the upstream vendor rather prominently in the title - is that > supposed to be like that? > > Cheers, > MaZe.Here read this: http://beta.centos.org/centos-4/4.0/docs/html/rhel-ig-x8664-multi-en-4/legalnotice.html -Mike
I did, but IANAL, and it''s pretty much Greek to me... how much can/should be changed??? Nothing? Cheers, MaZe. On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Michael Best wrote:> Maciej ?enczykowski wrote: > > http://beta.centos.org/centos-4/4.0/docs/html/rhel-ig-x8664-multi-en-4 et > > al. > > > > feature the upstream vendor rather prominently in the title - is that > > supposed to be like that? > > > > Cheers, > > MaZe. > > Here read this: > http://beta.centos.org/centos-4/4.0/docs/html/rhel-ig-x8664-multi-en-4/legalnotice.html > > -Mike > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@caosity.org > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
Maciej ?enczykowski wrote:>>Here read this: >>http://beta.centos.org/centos-4/4.0/docs/html/rhel-ig-x8664-multi-en-4/legalnotice.html >> >>-MikeThe Open Content license does permit derived works, modified versions must say they are modified, and have bibliographic attribution to the original work. -Mike
Michael Best wrote:> The Open Content license does permit derived works, modified versions > must say they are modified, and have bibliographic attribution to the > original work. > > -MikeAlthough Redhat does apparently object to substantively modified works, so I think that is the reasoning in leaving them intact. -Mike
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Michael Best wrote:> Maciej ??enczykowski wrote: > >>Here read this: > >>http://beta.centos.org/centos-4/4.0/docs/html/rhel-ig-x8664-multi-en-4/legalnotice.html > >> > >>-Mike > > The Open Content license does permit derived works, modified versions > must say they are modified, and have bibliographic attribution to the > original work.That is not my understanding having read it.>as in :- ''Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.'' That being an optional overrider on the opencontent license. as in :- The author(s) and/or publisher of an Open Publication-licensed document may elect certain options by appending language to the reference to or copy of the license. ... A. To prohibit distribution of substantively modified versions without the explicit permission of the author(s). "Substantive modification" is defined as a change to the semantic content of the document, and excludes mere changes in format or typographical corrections. Lance -- uklinux.net - The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user.
I think the main question is - whether changing Red Hat to CentOS everywhere except in the copyright and noting the change would be considered a substantial modification... On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Lance Davis wrote:> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Michael Best wrote: > > > Maciej ?>>enczykowski wrote: > > >>Here read this: > > >>http://beta.centos.org/centos-4/4.0/docs/html/rhel-ig-x8664-multi-en-4/legalnotice.html > > >> > > >>-Mike > > > > The Open Content license does permit derived works, modified versions > > must say they are modified, and have bibliographic attribution to the > > original work. > > That is not my understanding having read it. > > > > as in :- > > ''Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is > prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.'' > > That being an optional overrider on the opencontent license. > > as in :- > > The author(s) and/or publisher of an Open Publication-licensed document > may elect certain options by appending language to the reference to or > copy of the license. ... > > > A. To prohibit distribution of substantively modified versions without the > explicit permission of the author(s). "Substantive modification" is > defined as a change to the semantic content of the document, and excludes > mere changes in format or typographical corrections. > > Lance > >
It''s definately a grey area that needs sorting out with RH Legal.... However I think you have the crux of the issue Maciej. Cheer,s Matt. On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:37:35 +0100 (CET), Maciej ?enczykowski <maze@cela.pl> wrote:> I think the main question is - whether changing Red Hat to CentOS > everywhere except in the copyright and noting the change would be > considered a substantial modification... > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Lance Davis wrote: > > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Michael Best wrote: > > > > > Maciej ?>>enczykowski wrote: > > > >>Here read this: > > > >>http://beta.centos.org/centos-4/4.0/docs/html/rhel-ig-x8664-multi-en-4/legalnotice.html > > > >> > > > >>-Mike > > > > > > The Open Content license does permit derived works, modified versions > > > must say they are modified, and have bibliographic attribution to the > > > original work. > > > > That is not my understanding having read it. > > > > > > > as in :- > > > > ''Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is > > prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.'' > > > > That being an optional overrider on the opencontent license. > > > > as in :- > > > > The author(s) and/or publisher of an Open Publication-licensed document > > may elect certain options by appending language to the reference to or > > copy of the license. ... > > > > > > A. To prohibit distribution of substantively modified versions without the > > explicit permission of the author(s). "Substantive modification" is > > defined as a change to the semantic content of the document, and excludes > > mere changes in format or typographical corrections. > > > > Lance > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@caosity.org > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
Be very careful when it comes to documentation. RH can copyright their documentation. They do not have to make the docs open source. See the following doc at the top of the page: https://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/x8664-multi-install-guide/ -- Matt Shields http://masnetworks.biz http://sexydates4u.com http://shieldslinux.com http://shieldsmedia.com (currently under construction) http://shieldsproductions.com (currently under construction) On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:42:31 +1100, Matt Bottrell <mbottrell@gmail.com> wrote:> It''s definately a grey area that needs sorting out with RH Legal.... > However I think you have the crux of the issue Maciej. > > Cheer,s > > Matt. > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:37:35 +0100 (CET), Maciej ?enczykowski > <maze@cela.pl> wrote: > > I think the main question is - whether changing Red Hat to CentOS > > everywhere except in the copyright and noting the change would be > > considered a substantial modification... > > > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Lance Davis wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Michael Best wrote: > > > > > > > Maciej ?>>enczykowski wrote: > > > > >>Here read this: > > > > >>http://beta.centos.org/centos-4/4.0/docs/html/rhel-ig-x8664-multi-en-4/legalnotice.html > > > > >> > > > > >>-Mike > > > > > > > > The Open Content license does permit derived works, modified versions > > > > must say they are modified, and have bibliographic attribution to the > > > > original work. > > > > > > That is not my understanding having read it. > > > > > > > > > > as in :- > > > > > > ''Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is > > > prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.'' > > > > > > That being an optional overrider on the opencontent license. > > > > > > as in :- > > > > > > The author(s) and/or publisher of an Open Publication-licensed document > > > may elect certain options by appending language to the reference to or > > > copy of the license. ... > > > > > > > > > A. To prohibit distribution of substantively modified versions without the > > > explicit permission of the author(s). "Substantive modification" is > > > defined as a change to the semantic content of the document, and excludes > > > mere changes in format or typographical corrections. > > > > > > Lance > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CentOS mailing list > > CentOS@caosity.org > > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@caosity.org > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
Though this page may be of more relevance: https://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/x8664-multi-install-guide/colophon.html In particular: " Garrett LeSage created the admonition graphics (note, tip, important, caution, and warning). They may be freely redistributed with the Red Hat documentation." Notice the 2nd sentence... it just needs a CentOS staffer to touch back with RH Legal to confirm it''s okay. All in all... on can read the RHEL doco... it all applies. ;) Cheers, Matt. On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 01:51:06 -0500, Matt Shields <mattboston@gmail.com> wrote:> Be very careful when it comes to documentation. RH can copyright > their documentation. They do not have to make the docs open source. > See the following doc at the top of the page: > https://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/x8664-multi-install-guide/ > > -- > Matt Shields > http://masnetworks.biz > http://sexydates4u.com > http://shieldslinux.com > http://shieldsmedia.com (currently under construction) > http://shieldsproductions.com (currently under construction) > > > On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:42:31 +1100, Matt Bottrell <mbottrell@gmail.com> wrote: > > It''s definately a grey area that needs sorting out with RH Legal.... > > However I think you have the crux of the issue Maciej. > > > > Cheer,s > > > > Matt. > > > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:37:35 +0100 (CET), Maciej ?enczykowski > > <maze@cela.pl> wrote: > > > I think the main question is - whether changing Red Hat to CentOS > > > everywhere except in the copyright and noting the change would be > > > considered a substantial modification... > > > > > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Lance Davis wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Michael Best wrote: > > > > > > > > > Maciej ?>>enczykowski wrote: > > > > > >>Here read this: > > > > > >>http://beta.centos.org/centos-4/4.0/docs/html/rhel-ig-x8664-multi-en-4/legalnotice.html > > > > > >> > > > > > >>-Mike > > > > > > > > > > The Open Content license does permit derived works, modified versions > > > > > must say they are modified, and have bibliographic attribution to the > > > > > original work. > > > > > > > > That is not my understanding having read it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > as in :- > > > > > > > > ''Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is > > > > prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.'' > > > > > > > > That being an optional overrider on the opencontent license. > > > > > > > > as in :- > > > > > > > > The author(s) and/or publisher of an Open Publication-licensed document > > > > may elect certain options by appending language to the reference to or > > > > copy of the license. ... > > > > > > > > > > > > A. To prohibit distribution of substantively modified versions without the > > > > explicit permission of the author(s). "Substantive modification" is > > > > defined as a change to the semantic content of the document, and excludes > > > > mere changes in format or typographical corrections. > > > > > > > > Lance > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > CentOS mailing list > > > CentOS@caosity.org > > > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CentOS mailing list > > CentOS@caosity.org > > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@caosity.org > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >