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/