a question about GPT disk labels in Release Notes
by Domingo Becker
Just a curiosity about the new GPT disk labels in Fedora 16 as stated
in section 2.2.2. GPT Disk Labels.
I normally install Fedora with custom layout in the partition tables.
Section 2.2.2 says that I have to create a small partition but it
doesn't say which format it should be.
Are there any more references about this?
kind regards
Domingo Becker
12 years, 5 months
Fw: [Don't translate them!] Fedora Release Notes / Legal
by Valentin Laskov
wfd to docs again
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Valentin Laskov" <laskov(a)festa.bg>
| To: "Fedora Translation Project List" <trans(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
| Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 10:01 AM
| Subject: Re: [Don't translate them!] Fedora Release Notes / Legal
|
|
|| ----- Original Message -----
|| From: "Dimitris Glezos" <glezos(a)indifex.com>
||| > On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Eric H. Christensen
||| ><sparks(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
||| > Do not translate Legal.xml. Everything else should be okay.
|||
||| Is it possible to exclude this file from your PO files? This is the
||| most efficient way to tell translators not to translate something.
|||
||| You can also setup your Tx client to not push this file to Tx at all.
|||
||
1. Because there is no word "legal" in Bulgarian and if we want to be clear what is this, I wold like to translate (at least) the
title as
"Правна информация" - "Legal Information". I will not be able to do it, if this chapter is missing in TX
2. If the text is available for translating, there could be one sentence in it (e.g.): "In case of doubt or dispute shall be taken
to the English." or "In the event of any inconsistency between the translated text and the original English text, the English text
shall prevail." - the second is from "ICQ End User License Agreement"
Regards
laskov
12 years, 5 months
CC BY-SA attribution for Fedora docs
by Richard Fontana
Hi,
The standard license for Fedora documentation today is CC BY-SA 3.0
Unported (with a waiver of its ill-drafted moral rights clause). The
"BY" part of the license shorthand name of course refers to the common
feature of CC licenses providing for attribution to the author or some
other designated entity.
Currently the boilerplate legal notice handles attribution by saying:
The original authors of this document, and Red Hat, designate the
Fedora Project as the "Attribution Party" for purposes of
CC-BY-SA. In accordance with CC-BY-SA, if you distribute this
document or an adaptation of it, you must provide the URL for the
original version.
The first sentence there is somewhat cryptic for someone who hasn't
read the so-called "Legal Code" of CC BY-SA 3.0. Basically section
4(c) says that a distributor of the original or a derivative work must
(1) preserve copyright notices and (2) provide the name of the
"Original Author" (as defined, for a Fedora manual I'd say this would
be any named human authors or any substitute like "Fedora
Documentation Team" in the Installation Guide).
In addition or alternatively, the "Original Author and/or Licensor"
can designate an "Attribution Party", in which case the distributor
must provide the name of that Attribution Party. So we've been saying
"the Fedora Project" is that Attribution Party. Note also that Red Hat
appears in this legal text as *the* "Licensor" for what are now
basically obsolete reasons as a result of changes in the
recently-implemented Fedora Project Contributor Agreement. I *think*
that was one of the reasons for using the "Attribution Party" idea.
CC BY-SA 3.0 goes on to require the distributor to provide the
original title of the work and "to the extent reasonably practicable,
the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the
Work". There's even more detail, but that's the gist of it. That
requirement about the "URI" is the explanation for the second sentence
of the Fedora docs legal notice excerpt I quoted above.
We are looking at revising the legal notice, which provides an
opportunity to improve the attribution part. If I'm not mistaken,
people on the docs team have independently given some thought recently
to the issue of desired attribution. My current suggestion is to
replace the above excerpt with:
Required attribution under CC BY-SA shall include the names of all
listed authors of this document; the name of the Fedora Project
together with the URL <http://fedoraproject.org/>; and the URL for
the original version of this document.
Does anyone have any suggestions for improvements on that? For
example:
* Would it make more sense to speak of "the Fedora Documentation
Project" and the URL <http://docs.fedoraproject.org/> (at which that
term is used) rather than the more general reference to Fedora?
* Is attribution to anything other than the listed authors desired at
all?
* Is it reasonable at all to include the specific URL of the original
web version of the document as we've been doing (I don't know how
permanent these are expected to be)?
Thanks,
Richard E. Fontana
Open Source Licensing and Patent Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.
12 years, 5 months
sections missing for translation in Release Notes
by Domingo Becker
I just wanted to let you know that there are some Release Notes
sections which are not available for translations in transifex:
2.5. Cloud
4. Changes in Fedora for Developers
kind regards
Domingo Becker
12 years, 5 months
Legal.xml in Release Notes
by Eric Christensen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Is there any reason for the Release Notes to have a special Legal.xml instead of the basic one that comes with the Fedora brand? Its inclusion in the POTs is causing a lot of questions for the translators and I'm worried that we are using an unvetted legal statement in the Release Notes.
- --Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)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=ofDu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12 years, 6 months
[Don't translate them!] Fedora Release Notes / Legal
by Kévin Raymond
Hi guys,
I've just spoken with Spot,
we should not be able to translate legal statements. This because legals
are different for every contries and it should need specific skills in
order to translate them.
Of course, if you have those skills, that should be possible, see with
Spot.
@docs team, could you please remove this from transifex and be sure that
we won't get those statement later?
Cheers,
--
Kévin Raymond
User:shaiton
GPG-Key: A5BCB3A2
12 years, 6 months
Docs hackfest, Milan,
by Florian Nadge
Hi,
Best regards from Milan. The weather is swell and the food simply wonderful.
FUDcon kicked off this morning with a big bang. We have seen a few excellent presentations. However and jmcd and jhradile gave a great and very informative overview of Publican and Docbook, which drew quite a crowd. The organizers finally got a rough schedule for our Docs hackfest. Tomorrow, some time after 10:00 we should be able to get down to work. We decided to focus on open guides for Fedora 16 and discuss possible issues around transifix. hope to see you guys on #fedora-docs, freenode.
Fedora Docs hackfest:
when October 2, 2011
10:00 am (approximately)
where #fedora-docs, freenode
Florian
12 years, 6 months