Looking at the Kickstart and Boot Options sections, there are lists of options which are already written in the Red Hat docs.
The Kickstart options are a very long list:
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-3-Manual/sysadmin-guide/s...
The legal notices say Open Publication Licence (rather than GNU FDL), but also "distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder".
Would it be possible to re-use an exerpt in Fedora documentation without a licencing problem ? -- Stuart Ellis s.ellis@fastmail.co.uk
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 00:23 +0100, Stuart Ellis wrote:
Looking at the Kickstart and Boot Options sections, there are lists of options which are already written in the Red Hat docs.
The Kickstart options are a very long list:
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-3-Manual/sysadmin-guide/s...
The legal notices say Open Publication Licence (rather than GNU FDL), but also "distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder".
Would it be possible to re-use an exerpt in Fedora documentation without a licencing problem ?
Try /usr/share/doc/anaconda-.../ which should all be covered by the GPL
Paul
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 11:42 +0100, Paul Nasrat wrote:
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 00:23 +0100, Stuart Ellis wrote:
Looking at the Kickstart and Boot Options sections, there are lists of options which are already written in the Red Hat docs.
The Kickstart options are a very long list:
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-3-Manual/sysadmin-guide/s...
The legal notices say Open Publication Licence (rather than GNU FDL), but also "distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder".
Would it be possible to re-use an exerpt in Fedora documentation without a licencing problem ?
Try /usr/share/doc/anaconda-.../ which should all be covered by the GPL
Paul
The kickstart docs in /usr/share/doc/anaconda-*/ are under the OPL as well. They are just a text version of the ones in the Enterprise Linux docs.
Tammy
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 10:18:53AM -0400, Tammy Fox wrote:
The kickstart docs in /usr/share/doc/anaconda-*/ are under the OPL as well. They are just a text version of the ones in the Enterprise Linux docs.
Related to the original question about the RH docs: is there any explanation of when documents are seen as a "substantively modified versions" and when not?
Will changing the distro name at all places create a "substantively modified version", or not because "only" names are changed?
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 10:18 -0400, Tammy Fox wrote:
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 11:42 +0100, Paul Nasrat wrote:
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 00:23 +0100, Stuart Ellis wrote:
Would it be possible to re-use an exerpt in Fedora documentation without a licencing problem ?
Try /usr/share/doc/anaconda-.../ which should all be covered by the GPL
The kickstart docs in /usr/share/doc/anaconda-*/ are under the OPL as well. They are just a text version of the ones in the Enterprise Linux docs.
Certainly COPYING in anaconda CVS doesn't imply that.
Paul
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 15:28 +0100, Paul Nasrat wrote:
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 10:18 -0400, Tammy Fox wrote:
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 11:42 +0100, Paul Nasrat wrote:
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 00:23 +0100, Stuart Ellis wrote:
Would it be possible to re-use an exerpt in Fedora documentation without a licencing problem ?
Try /usr/share/doc/anaconda-.../ which should all be covered by the GPL
The kickstart docs in /usr/share/doc/anaconda-*/ are under the OPL as well. They are just a text version of the ones in the Enterprise Linux docs.
Certainly COPYING in anaconda CVS doesn't imply that.
Paul
The top of kickstart-docs.{txt,html} contains the OPL statement. It is probably worth filing a bug to say that the OPL for the kickstart docs and the COPYING file contradict each other. Will you file it since you discovered the bug?
Thanks, Tammy
The kickstart docs in /usr/share/doc/anaconda-*/ are under the OPL as well. They are just a text version of the ones in the Enterprise Linux docs.
Is there a way for us to safely reuse some of this OPL material ? There isn't much scope for rewriting the lists of options in a original way, so in this case it would it be much easier to just transplant. Obviously, the rest of text in the relevent sections of the Fedora Guide will be original work, so it's fairly limited reuse.
-- Stuart Ellis s.ellis@fastmail.co.uk
Stuart Ellis wrote:
Would it be possible to re-use an exerpt in Fedora documentation without a licencing problem ?
Hi Stuart,
I believe you would indeed run into a licensing problem using content from the Red Hat manuals. The only possible exception I can imagine would be if you included a snippet in quotes, complete with the proper attributions. I doubt that this is what you'd like to do, though. Sorry:-/
Cheers, Mark
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:00:13 -0500, "Mark Johnson" mjohnson@redhat.com said:
Stuart Ellis wrote:
Would it be possible to re-use an exerpt in Fedora documentation without a licencing problem ?
Hi Stuart,
I believe you would indeed run into a licensing problem using content from the Red Hat manuals. The only possible exception I can imagine would be if you included a snippet in quotes, complete with the proper attributions. I doubt that this is what you'd like to do, though. Sorry:-/
Thanks for confirming that - I found the OPL a little tricky to interpret. The word exerpt was probably a bit misleading.
The issue I've hit is that both kickstart and the anaconda boot prompt have many options - several pages worth for each, which as far as I know are only listed in OPL documentation (the Red Hat manuals and the text files installed in /usr/share/doc). The Table of Contents proposed for the (FDL licenced) Fedora Core Installation Guide specifies appendices for Kickstart and Additional Boot Options, which presumably would list exactly the same program options.
Even if it wasn't just a copy and paste job, I guess that the result would be close enough to be "copying" in a legal sense. It is just a guess, because I don't know enough about this area. All comments gratefully received...
-- Stuart Ellis s.ellis@fastmail.co.uk
-
Jos Vos -
Mark Johnson -
Paul Nasrat -
Stuart Ellis -
Tammy Fox