On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 13:30, Dave Pawson wrote:
> > I wonder why RH can't see that?
> > ... no
>
> I'm pretty sure they can. However, directing people to places where they
> can (essentially) violate IP rights may be roughly as actionable as
> violating them yourself.
I don't understand.
Actionable = someone could start a legal action against Red Hat. If I am
a corporate entity that directs you to resources that allow you to
knowingly violate Karsten's IP rights, then Karsten may have a legal
claim against me. Since I'm not an attorney, I don't know on what
exactly that claim would be predicated, but I do know that I would like
to avoid that risk where possible.
> I think, frankly, directing people to Google is always best,
that way
> they generally end up with the information they want, and it's up to
> them to provide the search parameters. I'm not saying that's the way to
> handle official documentation, I'm only saying it's an alternative
> that's free of legal entanglements.
And if it leads to yours or my website,
then 'customers' will be happy?
+1
Who gives a monkeys if its on RH website?
Just because that's where customers expect it.
I can't tell from your verbiage whether you're agreeing or not. :-)
Customers' expectations for a free, community-supported product should
be reasonable. Just because a doc's not on Red Hat's site doesn't
invalidate it. The Fedora Docs Project is not going to be one-stop
shopping for everything Fedora-related. There will always be other sites
that have a particular focus or specialty.
When using Python,
I find it quicker to use google to find
documentation than using the actual documentation index.
Does this mean we agree? I'm sorry, now I'm confused! :-)
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE