suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Mark Sobell]

Re: http://sources.redhat.com/

I ran across the following paragraph and thought
it inappropriate for the Red Hat site.  I have
suggested a way to change it.  Also, in the
following sentence it is not clear what "the
normal distribution of e-mail to that list"
includes. It might be good to make that a little
clearer.

The logs are not used for mailing list
subscription information other than the normal
distribution of e-mail to that list.

Please change the following:

Do you have a privacy statement for this site? 
Hey, why not. 
I will sell all your personal information to the
highest bidder. Bwahahaha! 
No, really, I have no interest in you or your
steenkin' information. I'm not recording anything
about you, short
of the normal web logs which show what pages are
being downloaded by what host. I'll never use any
of the
mailing list subscription information for anything
other than the normal distribution of e-mail to
that list. They
are not out to get you. 
I do generate some aggregate reports but those
don't identify you individually. 


To:

Do you have a privacy statement for this site? 
Red Hat does not record information about visitors
to this site other than the normal Web logs which
show which pages are downloaded by which hosts.
The logs are not used for mailing list
subscription information other than the normal
distribution of e-mail to that list. Red Hat does
generate aggregate reports but those reports do
not identify individual users. 
-- 
          Mark

Mark Sobell
sobell@redhat.com
415 777 8910 x 275

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Jason Molenda]

Hey overseers,

I don't know who Mark is.  Could he be in marketing maybe?  :-)

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 09:42:16AM -0800, Mark Sobell wrote:

> I ran across the following paragraph and thought
> it inappropriate for the Red Hat site.  

My two cents:  Of course it's inappropriate, that's why I wrote
it.  Y'all can decide if you want to change it (I'm not going to
mind one way or the other), but it isn't accidental - I really hate
corporate cover-your-ass written-in-legalese privacy statements,
when it all comes down to "We're keeping standard apache log files,
we don't give it to anyone else".  That's all a developer wants to
know - am I going to get mail from Amway if I sign up for this
ecos-discuss list, or am I going to have my hostname broadcast to
the world for reading alt.cygwin.sex.poll.poll.poll.

It annoys me almost as much as web pages that have copyright
statements at the bottom.  Of course it's copyrighted!  And who'd
rip off a web page, anyway?

People all need to chill.

Jason

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 10:36:29AM -0800, Jason Molenda wrote:
: [...]
: > I ran across the following paragraph and thought
: > it inappropriate for the Red Hat site.  
: 
: My two cents:  Of course it's inappropriate, that's why I wrote
: it.  [...]

Perhaps a link entitled "... but seriously" could point to the
proposed legalese-wannabe text.


: [...] And who'd rip off a web page, anyway? [...]

(It happens.)


- FChE
-- 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE6AGXEVZbdDOm/ZT0RAn7gAJ9D6iDhtGnO7faPQjOyChDJCBsIqwCfa8uJ
aNs/DFR7bNrgaON80on+E1s=
=1G9y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Jason Molenda]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 10:36:28AM -0800, Jason Molenda wrote:

> My two cents:  Of course it's inappropriate, that's why I wrote
> it.  Y'all can decide if you want to change it (I'm not going to
> mind one way or the other), but it isn't accidental 

I suppose I could stand to expand on this a bit.

I went overly informal on the front sourceware web page to make it
clear to users that they were no longer on a corporate site.  This
was largely in reaction to our earlier pathetic attempts to have
a corporate spin on free software PR (I'm thinking of the time
around 1994 - 1998).  Our cygnus.com site was trying so desperately
to be a large corporation that we looked like weak posers, and it
was so marketing-drenched that the important technical facts rarely
got through it all.

On sourceware I wanted to divorce from that corporate presence
entirely.  The only things marketing had a hand in are the mission
statement (I would never have written one, but it wasn't terrible
so I didn't mind) and the front page graphic (I think we paid some
consultant $1k or so to come up with "red").

Given that historical background, I wanted net.developers to know
that they were in a press release-free zone when they were on
sourceware, that they wouldn't have to wade through any marketing-style
English with little technical credence, that they would not see
"headquarter" used as a verb.

Maybe this isn't as necessary these days (I haven't looked at
redhat.com in a long time), in which case the change that this
person sent in is not objectionable - it still maintains the
important point of the privacy statement.


Jason

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Phil Edwards]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 10:36:29AM -0800, Jason Molenda wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 09:42:16AM -0800, Mark Sobell wrote:
> 
> > I ran across the following paragraph and thought
> > it inappropriate for the Red Hat site.  

sources.redhat.com isn't "the Red Hat site".

www.redhat.com is.  That can be (and is) covered by disclaimers and
copyrights and everything else that tends to annoy the very people working
on sources.redhat projects.


> My two cents:  Of course it's inappropriate, that's why I wrote
> it.  Y'all can decide if you want to change it (I'm not going to
> mind one way or the other), but it isn't accidental - I really hate
> corporate cover-your-ass written-in-legalese privacy statements,
> when it all comes down to "We're keeping standard apache log files,
> we don't give it to anyone else".

Hear, hear.  I personally know three people who have read the
sources.redhat page and become interested in the projects specifically
because it was lighthearted, and therefore obviously /not/ an "official"
RH company-related site.  They're interested in libre software, but not
interested in corporate-managed collaboration, and that's the impression
that an officious-sounding legalese disclaimer on the sources.redhat page
would make.


Phil

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 02:10:13PM -0500, Phil Edwards wrote:
>> My two cents:  Of course it's inappropriate, that's why I wrote
>> it.  Y'all can decide if you want to change it (I'm not going to
>> mind one way or the other), but it isn't accidental - I really hate
>> corporate cover-your-ass written-in-legalese privacy statements,
>> when it all comes down to "We're keeping standard apache log files,
>> we don't give it to anyone else".
>
>Hear, hear.  I personally know three people who have read the
>sources.redhat page and become interested in the projects specifically
>because it was lighthearted, and therefore obviously /not/ an "official"
>RH company-related site.  They're interested in libre software, but not
>interested in corporate-managed collaboration, and that's the impression
>that an officious-sounding legalese disclaimer on the sources.redhat page
>would make.

I agree.  Strongly.

cgf

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Ian Lance Taylor]

   Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 09:42:16 -0800
   From: Mark Sobell <sobell@redhat.com>

   I ran across the following paragraph and thought
   it inappropriate for the Red Hat site.

Let's change the name back to sourceware.cygnus.com, so that it will
be appropriate.

Ian

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Benjamin Kosnik]

> Hear, hear.  I personally know three people who have read the
> sources.redhat page and become interested in the projects specifically
> because it was lighthearted, and therefore obviously /not/ an "official"
> RH company-related site.  They're interested in libre software, but not
> interested in corporate-managed collaboration, and that's the impression
> that an officious-sounding legalese disclaimer on the sources.redhat page
> would make.

corporate-managed collaborations... funny.

I also am in support of keeping 
sources.redhat.com/sourceware.cygnus.com/whatever free of vauge marketing 
assertions. 

Furthermore, I think a web page with a bit of humor, especially for 
otherwise serious topics like compilers and libraries, is a fine idea. (I know reasonable 
people can and do differ about this subject, but allowing optional humor 
is a right that should be preseved.)

-benjamin

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Jim Kingdon]

> I don't know who Mark is.  Could he be in marketing maybe?  :-)

:-).  I don't know either.

For what it is worth, when I was working on the site more actively I
tried to keep up the fun, lighthearted tone which Jason set.  I mean,
it's just the Obvious Thing To Do(TM) when you think about who you
want to look at sources.redhat (hint: it isn't buzzword-happy
marketing types).

So you can either try to reason with him, or just ignore him.
Probably the latter.

P.S. if no one has yet made contact with the clueful people in
marketing, I'd suggest it.  Emily Forster does university relations
and user groups and is very community-aware.  Melissa London (PR) and
Nikki Bass (shows) you might have met at trade shows - they're both
clueful although they tend to be busy and not necessarily coming up
with messages anyway.  People like Billy Marshall, Craig Delger, &c
are more suit-like (which is good and useful in its own way, just not
too relevant to sources.redhat...).

sources.redhat.com...

[Paul Weinstein]

Speaking about trying to keep sources a bit lighthearted I've just added
the following to the FAQ list...


I need cvs write access for XYZ Project? 
We have an XYZ Project? Cool! 
Ok, you need write access for a project hosted on sources you say? Well,
first you'll need to have your request approved by the project
maintainer(s). Once they give their ok, you can use our handy dandy
little form and we'll process your request. 

If anyone has any feedback on this or the handy dandy little form that
goes along with this FAQ, let me know.

-Paul

--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Weinstein - <pdw@redhat.com> - 510.986.8770 x324
Internet Systems Virtuoso - Red Hat, Inc.
GnuPG Key: < http://www.weinstein.org/redhat/pdw_key.txt >
--------------------------------------------------------

Re: sources.redhat.com...

[Tom Tromey]

Paul> If anyone has any feedback on this or the handy dandy little
Paul> form that goes along with this FAQ, let me know.

Paul, thanks for doing this.  It looks great.

I made a couple minor tweaks:

* I made it mention sources.redhat.com and gcc.gnu.org, not sourceware
* I made it mention the project and not the repository.
  There's an oddity here: sometimes projects share a repository.
  But we want group membership to still be based on the primary
  project.  This matters for users who have logins and can upload
  files to ftp.

How does the appended patch look to you?  If it is ok with you I'll
check it in.

Maybe we should have a separate page that is `de-Red-hatted' -- it
would only mention gcc and not give a choice of project.  Comments?
Especially from gcc maintainers?

Tom

Index: pdw/ps_form.cgi
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/sourceware/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -r1.10 ps_form.cgi
--- ps_form.cgi	2000/11/02 00:40:13	1.10
+++ ps_form.cgi	2000/11/02 17:55:45
@@ -29,8 +29,8 @@
 <li>First and last name
 <li>Preferred login name
 <li>A forwarding e-mail address (where mail should go if it is sent to
-     you \@sourceware.cygnus.com)
-<li>What CVS repository this is for ("src", "automake", "gnats", etc.)
+     you \@sources.redhat.com or \@gcc.gnu.org)
+<li>What project this is for ("gdb", "automake", "gnats", etc.)
 <li>Who approved your access. 
 <li>An SSH public key
 </ol>
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
                        -default=>'Email Address');
 print "\n</td><td valign=top>\n";
 print $html->textfield(-name=>'cvs',
-                       -default=>'cvs repository');
+                       -default=>'project');
 print "\n</td></tr><tr><td colspan=2>\n";
 print $html->textfield(-name=>'approve',
                        -size=>44,

Re: sources.redhat.com...

[Paul Weinstein]

> Paul, thanks for doing this.  It looks great.

That's what I'm here for :-)

> I made a couple minor tweaks:
> 
> * I made it mention sources.redhat.com and gcc.gnu.org, not sourceware

Opps, my bad....

> * I made it mention the project and not the repository.
>   There's an oddity here: sometimes projects share a repository.
>   But we want group membership to still be based on the primary
>   project.  This matters for users who have logins and can upload
>   files to ftp.

Makes sense..

> How does the appended patch look to you?  If it is ok with you I'll
> check it in.

Looks good, be my guest and commit it.

> Maybe we should have a separate page that is `de-Red-hatted' -- it
> would only mention gcc and not give a choice of project.  Comments?
> Especially from gcc maintainers?

Also a good idea, if you ask me...

-Paul

--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Weinstein - <pdw@redhat.com> - 510.986.8770 x324
Internet Systems Virtuoso - Red Hat, Inc.
GnuPG Key: < http://www.weinstein.org/redhat/pdw_key.txt >
--------------------------------------------------------

suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Mark Sobell]

Re: http://sources.redhat.com/

I ran across the following paragraph and thought
it inappropriate for the Red Hat site.  I have
suggested a way to change it.  Also, in the
following sentence it is not clear what "the
normal distribution of e-mail to that list"
includes. It might be good to make that a little
clearer.

The logs are not used for mailing list
subscription information other than the normal
distribution of e-mail to that list.

Please change the following:

Do you have a privacy statement for this site? 
Hey, why not. 
I will sell all your personal information to the
highest bidder. Bwahahaha! 
No, really, I have no interest in you or your
steenkin' information. I'm not recording anything
about you, short
of the normal web logs which show what pages are
being downloaded by what host. I'll never use any
of the
mailing list subscription information for anything
other than the normal distribution of e-mail to
that list. They
are not out to get you. 
I do generate some aggregate reports but those
don't identify you individually. 


To:

Do you have a privacy statement for this site? 
Red Hat does not record information about visitors
to this site other than the normal Web logs which
show which pages are downloaded by which hosts.
The logs are not used for mailing list
subscription information other than the normal
distribution of e-mail to that list. Red Hat does
generate aggregate reports but those reports do
not identify individual users. 
-- 
          Mark

Mark Sobell
sobell@redhat.com
415 777 8910 x 275

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Phil Edwards]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 10:36:29AM -0800, Jason Molenda wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 09:42:16AM -0800, Mark Sobell wrote:
> 
> > I ran across the following paragraph and thought
> > it inappropriate for the Red Hat site.  

sources.redhat.com isn't "the Red Hat site".

www.redhat.com is.  That can be (and is) covered by disclaimers and
copyrights and everything else that tends to annoy the very people working
on sources.redhat projects.


> My two cents:  Of course it's inappropriate, that's why I wrote
> it.  Y'all can decide if you want to change it (I'm not going to
> mind one way or the other), but it isn't accidental - I really hate
> corporate cover-your-ass written-in-legalese privacy statements,
> when it all comes down to "We're keeping standard apache log files,
> we don't give it to anyone else".

Hear, hear.  I personally know three people who have read the
sources.redhat page and become interested in the projects specifically
because it was lighthearted, and therefore obviously /not/ an "official"
RH company-related site.  They're interested in libre software, but not
interested in corporate-managed collaboration, and that's the impression
that an officious-sounding legalese disclaimer on the sources.redhat page
would make.


Phil

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Ian Lance Taylor]

   Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 09:42:16 -0800
   From: Mark Sobell <sobell@redhat.com>

   I ran across the following paragraph and thought
   it inappropriate for the Red Hat site.

Let's change the name back to sourceware.cygnus.com, so that it will
be appropriate.

Ian

Re: sources.redhat.com...

[Paul Weinstein]

> Paul, thanks for doing this.  It looks great.

That's what I'm here for :-)

> I made a couple minor tweaks:
> 
> * I made it mention sources.redhat.com and gcc.gnu.org, not sourceware

Opps, my bad....

> * I made it mention the project and not the repository.
>   There's an oddity here: sometimes projects share a repository.
>   But we want group membership to still be based on the primary
>   project.  This matters for users who have logins and can upload
>   files to ftp.

Makes sense..

> How does the appended patch look to you?  If it is ok with you I'll
> check it in.

Looks good, be my guest and commit it.

> Maybe we should have a separate page that is `de-Red-hatted' -- it
> would only mention gcc and not give a choice of project.  Comments?
> Especially from gcc maintainers?

Also a good idea, if you ask me...

-Paul

--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Weinstein - <pdw@redhat.com> - 510.986.8770 x324
Internet Systems Virtuoso - Red Hat, Inc.
GnuPG Key: < http://www.weinstein.org/redhat/pdw_key.txt >
--------------------------------------------------------

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Jim Kingdon]

> I don't know who Mark is.  Could he be in marketing maybe?  :-)

:-).  I don't know either.

For what it is worth, when I was working on the site more actively I
tried to keep up the fun, lighthearted tone which Jason set.  I mean,
it's just the Obvious Thing To Do(TM) when you think about who you
want to look at sources.redhat (hint: it isn't buzzword-happy
marketing types).

So you can either try to reason with him, or just ignore him.
Probably the latter.

P.S. if no one has yet made contact with the clueful people in
marketing, I'd suggest it.  Emily Forster does university relations
and user groups and is very community-aware.  Melissa London (PR) and
Nikki Bass (shows) you might have met at trade shows - they're both
clueful although they tend to be busy and not necessarily coming up
with messages anyway.  People like Billy Marshall, Craig Delger, &c
are more suit-like (which is good and useful in its own way, just not
too relevant to sources.redhat...).

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Benjamin Kosnik]

> Hear, hear.  I personally know three people who have read the
> sources.redhat page and become interested in the projects specifically
> because it was lighthearted, and therefore obviously /not/ an "official"
> RH company-related site.  They're interested in libre software, but not
> interested in corporate-managed collaboration, and that's the impression
> that an officious-sounding legalese disclaimer on the sources.redhat page
> would make.

corporate-managed collaborations... funny.

I also am in support of keeping 
sources.redhat.com/sourceware.cygnus.com/whatever free of vauge marketing 
assertions. 

Furthermore, I think a web page with a bit of humor, especially for 
otherwise serious topics like compilers and libraries, is a fine idea. (I know reasonable 
people can and do differ about this subject, but allowing optional humor 
is a right that should be preseved.)

-benjamin

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Jason Molenda]

Hey overseers,

I don't know who Mark is.  Could he be in marketing maybe?  :-)

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 09:42:16AM -0800, Mark Sobell wrote:

> I ran across the following paragraph and thought
> it inappropriate for the Red Hat site.  

My two cents:  Of course it's inappropriate, that's why I wrote
it.  Y'all can decide if you want to change it (I'm not going to
mind one way or the other), but it isn't accidental - I really hate
corporate cover-your-ass written-in-legalese privacy statements,
when it all comes down to "We're keeping standard apache log files,
we don't give it to anyone else".  That's all a developer wants to
know - am I going to get mail from Amway if I sign up for this
ecos-discuss list, or am I going to have my hostname broadcast to
the world for reading alt.cygwin.sex.poll.poll.poll.

It annoys me almost as much as web pages that have copyright
statements at the bottom.  Of course it's copyrighted!  And who'd
rip off a web page, anyway?

People all need to chill.

Jason

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Jason Molenda]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 10:36:28AM -0800, Jason Molenda wrote:

> My two cents:  Of course it's inappropriate, that's why I wrote
> it.  Y'all can decide if you want to change it (I'm not going to
> mind one way or the other), but it isn't accidental 

I suppose I could stand to expand on this a bit.

I went overly informal on the front sourceware web page to make it
clear to users that they were no longer on a corporate site.  This
was largely in reaction to our earlier pathetic attempts to have
a corporate spin on free software PR (I'm thinking of the time
around 1994 - 1998).  Our cygnus.com site was trying so desperately
to be a large corporation that we looked like weak posers, and it
was so marketing-drenched that the important technical facts rarely
got through it all.

On sourceware I wanted to divorce from that corporate presence
entirely.  The only things marketing had a hand in are the mission
statement (I would never have written one, but it wasn't terrible
so I didn't mind) and the front page graphic (I think we paid some
consultant $1k or so to come up with "red").

Given that historical background, I wanted net.developers to know
that they were in a press release-free zone when they were on
sourceware, that they wouldn't have to wade through any marketing-style
English with little technical credence, that they would not see
"headquarter" used as a verb.

Maybe this isn't as necessary these days (I haven't looked at
redhat.com in a long time), in which case the change that this
person sent in is not objectionable - it still maintains the
important point of the privacy statement.


Jason

sources.redhat.com...

[Paul Weinstein]

Speaking about trying to keep sources a bit lighthearted I've just added
the following to the FAQ list...


I need cvs write access for XYZ Project? 
We have an XYZ Project? Cool! 
Ok, you need write access for a project hosted on sources you say? Well,
first you'll need to have your request approved by the project
maintainer(s). Once they give their ok, you can use our handy dandy
little form and we'll process your request. 

If anyone has any feedback on this or the handy dandy little form that
goes along with this FAQ, let me know.

-Paul

--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Weinstein - <pdw@redhat.com> - 510.986.8770 x324
Internet Systems Virtuoso - Red Hat, Inc.
GnuPG Key: < http://www.weinstein.org/redhat/pdw_key.txt >
--------------------------------------------------------

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 10:36:29AM -0800, Jason Molenda wrote:
: [...]
: > I ran across the following paragraph and thought
: > it inappropriate for the Red Hat site.  
: 
: My two cents:  Of course it's inappropriate, that's why I wrote
: it.  [...]

Perhaps a link entitled "... but seriously" could point to the
proposed legalese-wannabe text.


: [...] And who'd rip off a web page, anyway? [...]

(It happens.)


- FChE
-- 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE6AGXEVZbdDOm/ZT0RAn7gAJ9D6iDhtGnO7faPQjOyChDJCBsIqwCfa8uJ
aNs/DFR7bNrgaON80on+E1s=
=1G9y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: sources.redhat.com...

[Tom Tromey]

Paul> If anyone has any feedback on this or the handy dandy little
Paul> form that goes along with this FAQ, let me know.

Paul, thanks for doing this.  It looks great.

I made a couple minor tweaks:

* I made it mention sources.redhat.com and gcc.gnu.org, not sourceware
* I made it mention the project and not the repository.
  There's an oddity here: sometimes projects share a repository.
  But we want group membership to still be based on the primary
  project.  This matters for users who have logins and can upload
  files to ftp.

How does the appended patch look to you?  If it is ok with you I'll
check it in.

Maybe we should have a separate page that is `de-Red-hatted' -- it
would only mention gcc and not give a choice of project.  Comments?
Especially from gcc maintainers?

Tom

Index: pdw/ps_form.cgi
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/sourceware/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -r1.10 ps_form.cgi
--- ps_form.cgi	2000/11/02 00:40:13	1.10
+++ ps_form.cgi	2000/11/02 17:55:45
@@ -29,8 +29,8 @@
 <li>First and last name
 <li>Preferred login name
 <li>A forwarding e-mail address (where mail should go if it is sent to
-     you \@sourceware.cygnus.com)
-<li>What CVS repository this is for ("src", "automake", "gnats", etc.)
+     you \@sources.redhat.com or \@gcc.gnu.org)
+<li>What project this is for ("gdb", "automake", "gnats", etc.)
 <li>Who approved your access. 
 <li>An SSH public key
 </ol>
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
                        -default=>'Email Address');
 print "\n</td><td valign=top>\n";
 print $html->textfield(-name=>'cvs',
-                       -default=>'cvs repository');
+                       -default=>'project');
 print "\n</td></tr><tr><td colspan=2>\n";
 print $html->textfield(-name=>'approve',
                        -size=>44,

Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 02:10:13PM -0500, Phil Edwards wrote:
>> My two cents:  Of course it's inappropriate, that's why I wrote
>> it.  Y'all can decide if you want to change it (I'm not going to
>> mind one way or the other), but it isn't accidental - I really hate
>> corporate cover-your-ass written-in-legalese privacy statements,
>> when it all comes down to "We're keeping standard apache log files,
>> we don't give it to anyone else".
>
>Hear, hear.  I personally know three people who have read the
>sources.redhat page and become interested in the projects specifically
>because it was lighthearted, and therefore obviously /not/ an "official"
>RH company-related site.  They're interested in libre software, but not
>interested in corporate-managed collaboration, and that's the impression
>that an officious-sounding legalese disclaimer on the sources.redhat page
>would make.

I agree.  Strongly.

cgf