fedora-docs bugs

[Paul W. Frields]

> > I think, frankly, directing people to Google is always best, that way
> > they generally end up with the information they want, and it's up to
> > them to provide the search parameters. I'm not saying that's the way to
> > handle official documentation, I'm only saying it's an alternative
> > that's free of legal entanglements.
> 
> I wonder if we could direct people to google with suggestions on search
> terminology and usage?  For example:
> 
> "One of the powers of Fedora Core is the enormous community behind it. 
> You will find that community is your best resource for using Fedora
> Core.  To find popular and useful websites with information, use your
> favorite Web search engine, such as http://www.google.com.  Try search
> terms such as:
> 
>   using fedora to <insert what you want to make Fedora do>  
>   fedora multimedia software
>   fedora packages"
> 
> The search results that return for those search are not controlled by us
> in any way.  There are often more than 10,000 results.  We can in no way
> be held responsible for what is on those pages.
> 
> Of course, IANAL, TINLA.  Just an idea I personally am having.

That's kind of similar to what I was thinking. I would suspect anything
of this nature should make its way over the desk of a person whose
business card includes "IAAL." I would guess that happens routinely with
any remotely questionable Web material sponsored or hosted at Red Hat.

Hopefully I'm not coming off as too stodgy or finicky about this issue,
since I don't have any true appreciation for the very fine points of the
law pertaining hereto. But having worked for some highly skilled
attorneys for a significant portion of my career, I try not to run afoul
of any of them. Besides which, I have a great admiration for the stance
Red Hat took on this issue, especially in light of its unpopularity.

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE