7:27 p.m.
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
11:22 p.m.
On Thursday 31 August 2006 19:27, "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)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?
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com
http://www.n-man.com/
LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64
Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance!
http://rate.affero.net/nman64/
--
9:56 a.m.
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 23:22 -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote:
On Thursday 31 August 2006 19:27, "Paul W. Frields"
<stickster(a)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.
--
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
1:16 p.m.
What about releasing the work under a Creative Commons license? Just a thought.
- Russell
On 9/1/06, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)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(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-websites-list
1:42 p.m.
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.
--
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
11:59 p.m.
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
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project
Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
3:57 p.m.
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
4:09 p.m.
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
4:20 p.m.
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
4:14 p.m.
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(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-websites-list
9:46 p.m.
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, 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
9:50 p.m.
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
10 p.m.
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.
--
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
10:24 p.m.
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 21:50, Rahul <sundaram(a)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.
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com
http://www.n-man.com/
LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64
Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance!
http://rate.affero.net/nman64/
--
6455
days inactive
6484
days old
websites@lists.fedoraproject.org
13 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Greg DeKoenigsberg -
Jonathan Steffan -
Karsten Wade -
Max Spevack -
Patrick W. Barnes -
Paul W. Frields -
Rahul Sundaram -
Russell John