On 04/20/2012 03:16 PM, Ed Heron wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 14:44 -0300, Crunch wrote:
>> ...
>> 1) Why if the original document was licensed with an "open commons"
>> license is the document being relicensed as an "open publication" license.
>I think Red Hat changed their license since tha
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 14:44 -0300, Crunch wrote:
> ...
> 1) Why if the original document was licensed with an "open commons"
> license is the document being relicensed as an "open publication" license.
I think Red Hat changed their license since that footer was written.
> 2) Why does the foot
On 04/06/2012 08:08 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Hi All
Some comments on the foot note for the documentation at
http://www.centos.org/docs. The comments are with regard to the open
commons license that comes with the original documentation.
