On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006).
Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and others"? That's how most other content and code is marked distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one include?
On Thursday 31 August 2006 19:27, "Paul W. Frields" stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006).
Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and others"? That's how most other content and code is marked distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one include?
Yes on all counts. Any volunteers that have the necessary privileges?
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 23:22 -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote:
On Thursday 31 August 2006 19:27, "Paul W. Frields" stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006).
Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and others"? That's how most other content and code is marked distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one include?
Yes on all counts. Any volunteers that have the necessary privileges?
Sorry, I don't, or I would be happy to do it.
What about releasing the work under a Creative Commons license? Just a thought.
- Russell
On 9/1/06, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006).
Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and others"? That's how most other content and code is marked distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one include?
-- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
-- Fedora-websites-list mailing list Fedora-websites-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-websites-list
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 00:16 +0600, Russell John wrote:
What about releasing the work under a Creative Commons license? Just a thought.
I'm not sure I see the utility in doing so, especially since the vast, vast majority of what's on these pages is very Fedora Project specific. As such, not only is it probably material that needs to be protected from potential user confusion and trademark dilution, but it's probably also useless anywhere but where it is.
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 14:42 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 00:16 +0600, Russell John wrote:
What about releasing the work under a Creative Commons license? Just a thought.
I'm not sure I see the utility in doing so, especially since the vast, vast majority of what's on these pages is very Fedora Project specific. As such, not only is it probably material that needs to be protected from potential user confusion and trademark dilution, but it's probably also useless anywhere but where it is.
Belated reply to make it clear that, at this time, the CC is not an optional license we can use for Fedora content. AIUI, the major objection is the lack of warranty protection, which is an important consideration in the US.
- Karsten
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006).
Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and others"? That's how most other content and code is marked distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one include?
Shouldn't we just turn off port 80 on fedora.redhat.com and point people at the darn wiki or plone at this point?
only partially in jest.
Let's just get anything that's still useful off of f.r.c and kill the darn thing. I know I've suggested as much before, but I'm kinda tired of this dual-site crap.
Isn't everyone else?
--Max
Max Spevack wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006).
Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and others"? That's how most other content and code is marked distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one include?
Shouldn't we just turn off port 80 on fedora.redhat.com and point people at the darn wiki or plone at this point?
only partially in jest.
Let's just get anything that's still useful off of f.r.c and kill the darn thing. I know I've suggested as much before, but I'm kinda tired of this dual-site crap.
Isn't everyone else?
--Max
I'd like to see fpserv take over the job. However, there needs to be upgrades to the plone version and thus the python and zope versions. I don't know if it would be more a pain to get centos running the version of python needed or if it would just be easier to get a Fedora setup. So far I have (and so has Fedora Unity) found plone very useful. We would *need* CacheFu otherwise plone can get very slow at times. This means we should be using plone 2.5. I need to start some more discussion on the infrastructure-list. If anyone would like to join me, please do. I'm busy with work during the day today and will try to forge a good email to send to the list(s). f.r.c should die and I think plone should be the one to kill it. Just my $.02.
Jon
Jonathan Steffan wrote:
Let's just get anything that's still useful off of f.r.c and kill the darn thing. I know I've suggested as much before, but I'm kinda tired of this dual-site crap.
Isn't everyone else?
--Max
Yes.
I'd like to see fpserv take over the job. However, there needs to be upgrades to the plone version and thus the python and zope versions. I don't know if it would be more a pain to get centos running the version of python needed or if it would just be easier to get a Fedora setup. So far I have (and so has Fedora Unity) found plone very useful. We would *need* CacheFu otherwise plone can get very slow at times. This means we should be using plone 2.5. I need to start some more discussion on the infrastructure-list. If anyone would like to join me, please do. I'm busy with work during the day today and will try to forge a good email to send to the list(s). f.r.c should die and I think plone should be the one to kill it. Just my $.02.
Jon
I dont think Plone is a absolute requirement to turn off f.r.c. Many project have been using just the wiki for a long time. We can provide a better theme and organize content if necessary till we get Plone in place. Infrastructure list seems to be a closed one anyway. We will set a deadline say before the FC6 general release for cutting off f.r.c. If things happen better before that great. Otherwise we will deal with things.
Rahul
Redirect. Make it happen today.
--g
------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors -------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Max Spevack wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006).
Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and others"? That's how most other content and code is marked distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one include?
Shouldn't we just turn off port 80 on fedora.redhat.com and point people at the darn wiki or plone at this point?
only partially in jest.
Let's just get anything that's still useful off of f.r.c and kill the darn thing. I know I've suggested as much before, but I'm kinda tired of this dual-site crap.
Isn't everyone else?
--Max
-- Max Spevack
- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack
- gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc
- fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21
-- Fedora-websites-list mailing list Fedora-websites-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-websites-list
On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 17:14 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Max Spevack wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On http://fedora.redhat.com and its subpages, the copyright notice at bottom seems to change dates from section to section, usually without reflecting reality (most of the pages were updated this year, for example, so it probably should say (C) 2002-2006).
Also, shouldn't the copyright say "(C) 2002-2006 Red Hat, Inc. and others"? That's how most other content and code is marked distribution-wide, to reflect community contributions. IIRC this was the text approved by legal. Can all these notices be condensed to one include?
Shouldn't we just turn off port 80 on fedora.redhat.com and point people at the darn wiki or plone at this point?
only partially in jest.
Let's just get anything that's still useful off of f.r.c and kill the darn thing. I know I've suggested as much before, but I'm kinda tired of this dual-site crap.
Isn't everyone else?
Redirect. Make it happen today.
Has someone provided a process for us Docs people to provide online browseable docs for our users through Plone? If so, then I'm all for it. The wiki does not work for this purpose right now, AFAICT.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
Has someone provided a process for us Docs people to provide online browseable docs for our users through Plone? If so, then I'm all for it. The wiki does not work for this purpose right now, AFAICT.
Isnt all of the work currently done without plone? If you just need a space to publish, you can do it outside of the wiki in fp.org/docs right?
Rahul
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 08:20 +0530, Rahul wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
Has someone provided a process for us Docs people to provide online browseable docs for our users through Plone? If so, then I'm all for it. The wiki does not work for this purpose right now, AFAICT.
Isnt all of the work currently done without plone? If you just need a space to publish, you can do it outside of the wiki in fp.org/docs right?
True. I misunderstood that people were pushing Plone as the solution now. Yes, happy to go along as before at a new URL.
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 21:50, Rahul sundaram@redhat.com wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
Has someone provided a process for us Docs people to provide online browseable docs for our users through Plone? If so, then I'm all for it. The wiki does not work for this purpose right now, AFAICT.
Isnt all of the work currently done without plone? If you just need a space to publish, you can do it outside of the wiki in fp.org/docs right?
Not quite, there are still a few problems with this. The built items under /docs still reference files, such as stylesheets, images and other pages, from outside of that namespace. The process still uses PHP and other bits that aren't available on fedoraproject.org, so we'd either have to migrate away from those bits or we'd have to proxy or redirect fp.o/docs to infrastructure that does. I'm sure there are other issues for Docs, too.
Another problem is the mirror lists and other actively-used files still on fedora.redhat.com. We can't shut off those items, either, but they'll probably be easier to address than /docs.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it's not something we can do within a day. Personally, I'd much rather figure out how to empower Plone than spend a bunch of time trying to move the old cruft to fedoraproject.org.
websites@lists.fedoraproject.org