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

Just my two cents: Anyone thought of asking Red Hat to use documentation? I
think they are getting much from the community so to copy public accessible
documentation when permitted by RH could be an easy way.

Why not giving that a try?

Am 18. Januar 2015 20:56:59 MEZ, schrieb Darr247 <darr247 at
gmail.com>:
>On 18 January 2015 @19:07 zulu, Mark LaPierre wrote:
>> 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. 
>
>
>Unless you get RH's permission in writing to do so, in advance, I'm 
>pretty-sure copy and paste does not meet the "so it doesn't violate
>copyright law" criterion I mentioned earlier.
>
>Even if you're not doing it for any type of monetary gain... the DMCA 
>and WIPO loom large.
>_______________________________________________
>CentOS mailing list
>CentOS at centos.org
>http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 01/19/2015 10:51 AM, Tim wrote:
> Just my two cents: Anyone thought of asking Red Hat to use 
> documentation? I think they are getting much from the community so
> to copy public accessible documentation when permitted by RH could be
> an easy way.
> 
> Why not giving that a try?
There's no need to ask them, they've already given permission:
> Copyright ? 2014 Red Hat, Inc.
> This document is licensed by Red Hat under the Creative Commons
> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If you distribute this
> document, or a modified version of it, you must provide attribution
> to Red Hat, Inc. and provide a link to the original. If the document
> is modified, all Red Hat trademarks must be removed.
I'd say that's good enough.


Peter

On 01/18/15 22:55, Peter wrote:
> On 01/19/2015 10:51 AM, Tim wrote:
>> Just my two cents: Anyone thought of asking Red Hat to use 
>> documentation? I think they are getting much from the community so
>> to copy public accessible documentation when permitted by RH could be
>> an easy way.
>>
>> Why not giving that a try?
> 
> There's no need to ask them, they've already given permission:
> 
>> Copyright ? 2014 Red Hat, Inc.
>> This document is licensed by Red Hat under the Creative Commons
>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If you distribute this
>> document, or a modified version of it, you must provide attribution
>> to Red Hat, Inc. and provide a link to the original. If the document
>> is modified, all Red Hat trademarks must be removed.
> 
> I'd say that's good enough.
> 
> 
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
Well then there appears to be no reason to not go with a version of my
initial suggestion.

State what CentOS is and what it's sources are.  State that there may be
some minor divergence between the behavior of CantOS and the Red Hat
documentation.  You can explain why if you feel that it's required.

Attribute the documentation to Red Hat.

Provide a link to the original Red Hat documentation as required in
their copyright statement.

By taking these steps we would be exceeding the requirements of the
license in that we are providing the attribution and the link even
though we are not distributing the document, or a modified version of it.

By providing a link to the documentation we would no more be
distributing the documentation than Google would be distributing the
Weather Channel by providing a link to it in their search results.

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

On 01/18/2015 09:55 PM, Peter wrote:
> On 01/19/2015 10:51 AM, Tim wrote:
>> Just my two cents: Anyone thought of asking Red Hat to use 
>> documentation? I think they are getting much from the community so
>> to copy public accessible documentation when permitted by RH could be
>> an easy way.
>>
>> Why not giving that a try?
> 
> There's no need to ask them, they've already given permission:
> 
>> Copyright ? 2014 Red Hat, Inc.
>> This document is licensed by Red Hat under the Creative Commons
>> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If you distribute this
>> document, or a modified version of it, you must provide attribution
>> to Red Hat, Inc. and provide a link to the original. If the document
>> is modified, all Red Hat trademarks must be removed.
> 
> I'd say that's good enough.
It is good enough to take the Documentation and start taking out their
trademarks, etc.

And editing content too .. anything that is talking about RHN (for
example) is NA.

The bottom line is, if you want to use the Red Hat documentation it is
is good as a reference, but it is not totally applicable.  You know
where to find it.  But as CentOS is community supported, the community
can (and should) take the documentation and turn it into CentOS specific
versions.

The CentOS project can facilitate an area in git that can be used for
this and the centos-docs mailing list can be used as well.





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20150119/c326444f/attachment-0001.sig>