CentOS - Jan 2015 - Documentation link on new Firefox CentOS 7 splash screen

On 01/15/15 22:55, Darr247 wrote:
> On 16 January 2015 @00:34 zulu, Digimer wrote:
>> So either the link should be changed or the linked page should be
>> updated.
>>
> 
> Well, until someone rewrites the redhat docs so they don't violate
> copyright laws, and links to them on that centos.org/docs page, I'll
> continue perusing and referring to the RHEL 6 and 7 documentation.
> _______________________________________________
Alright then.  May I suggest a solution that might satisfy both opinions.

On the documentation page where the links to CentOS [345] are found
place a statement to this effect:

"CentOS is functionally equivalent to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
and is based on the same code, as released by Red Hat, and rebuilt by
the CentOS community."  At this point briefly explain the moral
conundrum that prevents you from linking directly to the RHEL
documentation.  Then provide the appropriate link to the appropriate
RHEL documentation with the explanation that, "this is a link to the
documentation for RHEL upon which CentOS is based."  There you have a
disclaimer as well as an attribution.

What say yea to this proposal?

An undocumented computer program differs only slightly from a video
game.  Both are filled with mysteries, puzzles, and unanswered questions.

-- 
    _
   ?v?
  /(_)\
   ^ ^  Mark LaPierre
Registered Linux user No #267004
https://linuxcounter.net/
****

On 17/01/15 09:14 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
> On 01/15/15 22:55, Darr247 wrote:
>> On 16 January 2015 @00:34 zulu, Digimer wrote:
>>> So either the link should be changed or the linked page should be
>>> updated.
>>>
>>
>> Well, until someone rewrites the redhat docs so they don't violate
>> copyright laws, and links to them on that centos.org/docs page,
I'll
>> continue perusing and referring to the RHEL 6 and 7 documentation.
>> _______________________________________________
>
> Alright then.  May I suggest a solution that might satisfy both opinions.
>
> On the documentation page where the links to CentOS [345] are found
> place a statement to this effect:
>
> "CentOS is functionally equivalent to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
> and is based on the same code, as released by Red Hat, and rebuilt by
> the CentOS community."  At this point briefly explain the moral
> conundrum that prevents you from linking directly to the RHEL
> documentation.  Then provide the appropriate link to the appropriate
> RHEL documentation with the explanation that, "this is a link to the
> documentation for RHEL upon which CentOS is based."  There you have a
> disclaimer as well as an attribution.
>
> What say yea to this proposal?
>
> An undocumented computer program differs only slightly from a video
> game.  Both are filled with mysteries, puzzles, and unanswered questions.
I think it's a fantastic idea. Any CentOS people care to comment?

-- 
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?

On 01/18/2015 02:14 AM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
> On 01/15/15 22:55, Darr247 wrote:
>> On 16 January 2015 @00:34 zulu, Digimer wrote:
>>> So either the link should be changed or the linked page should be
>>> updated.
>>>
>>
>> Well, until someone rewrites the redhat docs so they don't violate
>> copyright laws, and links to them on that centos.org/docs page,
I'll
>> continue perusing and referring to the RHEL 6 and 7 documentation.
>> _______________________________________________
> 
> Alright then.  May I suggest a solution that might satisfy both opinions.
> 
> On the documentation page where the links to CentOS [345] are found
> place a statement to this effect:
> 
> "CentOS is functionally equivalent to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
but its not.
> and is based on the same code, as released by Red Hat, and rebuilt by
> the CentOS community."  At this point briefly explain the moral
that does not make it functionally equivalent.
> conundrum that prevents you from linking directly to the RHEL
> documentation.  Then provide the appropriate link to the appropriate
> RHEL documentation with the explanation that, "this is a link to the
> documentation for RHEL upon which CentOS is based."  There you have a
> disclaimer as well as an attribution.
> 
> What say yea to this proposal?
why not just say 'CentOS Linux is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux
sources as released via git.centos.org and therefore documentation
applicable to Red Hat Enterprise Linux should largely apply to CentOS
Linux of the same version, architecture and release.'

And leave it at that ( note: no linking, therefore no assertions of
compatibility or equivallencce ).
> An undocumented computer program differs only slightly from a video
> game.  Both are filled with mysteries, puzzles, and unanswered questions.
Therefore, lets do the right thing - get the means together in community
to adapt those docs, brand them accordingly and publish them under
centos.org

-- 
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

On 01/18/15 03:45, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 01/18/2015 02:14 AM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
>> On 01/15/15 22:55, Darr247 wrote:
>>> On 16 January 2015 @00:34 zulu, Digimer wrote:
>>>> So either the link should be changed or the linked page should
be
>>>> updated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, until someone rewrites the redhat docs so they don't
violate
>>> copyright laws, and links to them on that centos.org/docs page,
I'll
>>> continue perusing and referring to the RHEL 6 and 7 documentation.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Alright then.  May I suggest a solution that might satisfy both
opinions.
>>
>> On the documentation page where the links to CentOS [345] are found
>> place a statement to this effect:
>>
>> "CentOS is functionally equivalent to Red Hat Enterprise Linux
(RHEL)
> 
> but its not.
> 
>> and is based on the same code, as released by Red Hat, and rebuilt by
>> the CentOS community."  At this point briefly explain the moral
> 
> that does not make it functionally equivalent.
> 
>> conundrum that prevents you from linking directly to the RHEL
>> documentation.  Then provide the appropriate link to the appropriate
>> RHEL documentation with the explanation that, "this is a link to
the
>> documentation for RHEL upon which CentOS is based."  There you
have a
>> disclaimer as well as an attribution.
>>
>> What say yea to this proposal?
> 
> why not just say 'CentOS Linux is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux
> sources as released via git.centos.org and therefore documentation
> applicable to Red Hat Enterprise Linux should largely apply to CentOS
> Linux of the same version, architecture and release.'
> 
> And leave it at that ( note: no linking, therefore no assertions of
> compatibility or equivallencce ).
> 
>> An undocumented computer program differs only slightly from a video
>> game.  Both are filled with mysteries, puzzles, and unanswered
questions.
> 
> Therefore, lets do the right thing - get the means together in community
> to adapt those docs, brand them accordingly and publish them under
> centos.org
> 
I'm up for that.  My time is a bit limited but I would like to help.
Can anyone hold my hand a bit while I learn the ropes?  I'm not much
good at C or C++ but I can write documentation.  Especially if it's
already pretty much written and all I have to do is copy and paste.

First thing we will need is someone who is willing and able to head up
this effort.

-- 
    _
   ?v?
  /(_)\
   ^ ^  Mark LaPierre
Registered Linux user No #267004
https://linuxcounter.net/
****

On 18/01/15 03:45 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 01/18/2015 02:14 AM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
>> On 01/15/15 22:55, Darr247 wrote:
>>> On 16 January 2015 @00:34 zulu, Digimer wrote:
>>>> So either the link should be changed or the linked page should
be
>>>> updated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, until someone rewrites the redhat docs so they don't
violate
>>> copyright laws, and links to them on that centos.org/docs page,
I'll
>>> continue perusing and referring to the RHEL 6 and 7 documentation.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Alright then.  May I suggest a solution that might satisfy both
opinions.
>>
>> On the documentation page where the links to CentOS [345] are found
>> place a statement to this effect:
>>
>> "CentOS is functionally equivalent to Red Hat Enterprise Linux
(RHEL)
>
> but its not.
>
>> and is based on the same code, as released by Red Hat, and rebuilt by
>> the CentOS community."  At this point briefly explain the moral
>
> that does not make it functionally equivalent.
>
>> conundrum that prevents you from linking directly to the RHEL
>> documentation.  Then provide the appropriate link to the appropriate
>> RHEL documentation with the explanation that, "this is a link to
the
>> documentation for RHEL upon which CentOS is based."  There you
have a
>> disclaimer as well as an attribution.
>>
>> What say yea to this proposal?
>
> why not just say 'CentOS Linux is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux
> sources as released via git.centos.org and therefore documentation
> applicable to Red Hat Enterprise Linux should largely apply to CentOS
> Linux of the same version, architecture and release.'
>
> And leave it at that ( note: no linking, therefore no assertions of
> compatibility or equivallencce ).
>
>> An undocumented computer program differs only slightly from a video
>> game.  Both are filled with mysteries, puzzles, and unanswered
questions.
>
> Therefore, lets do the right thing - get the means together in community
> to adapt those docs, brand them accordingly and publish them under
> centos.org
Is it legal to copy the documentation and replace trademarks? IANAL... :)

Alternatively, if we can't copy RHEL docs, can we copy Fedora 12~13, 
18~19 docs and adapt as needed? Or would be have to write everything 
from scratch?

-- 
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?