Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>> Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
>>>
>>>
Anthony wrote:
>> a) a link (URL) to the history page of the article
>> or other page that contains the authorship
Some people on this list have had a negative reaction to the licensing
proposal. Sometimes this arises from different understandings of what
the new license will mean (i.e. issues of interpretation). More often
it seems the core issues are different opinions about whether the
change is desirable
On 3/16/09, Chad wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:09 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/3/16 Geoffrey Plourde :
>>
>>> 1.3 allows for the transfer to CC by SA, please stop playing semantics
>>
>>
>> Michael, could you please moderate Anthony? He's only here to spread FUD.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:09 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Geoffrey Plourde :
>
>> 1.3 allows for the transfer to CC by SA, please stop playing semantics
>
>
> Michael, could you please moderate Anthony? He's only here to spread FUD.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>
>> Anthony,
>>
>> If you don't mind, let's be specific.
>
>
> I have no problem with being specific, but it probably isn't in my best
> interest to answer some of your questions. Sorry.
>
>
2009/3/16 Geoffrey Plourde :
> 1.3 allows for the transfer to CC by SA, please stop playing semantics
Michael, could you please moderate Anthony? He's only here to spread FUD.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsub
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> Anthony,
>
> If you don't mind, let's be specific.
I have no problem with being specific, but it probably isn't in my best
interest to answer some of your questions. Sorry.
Which edits are yours? (Were you User:Anthony?)
>
Unless somet
1.3 allows for the transfer to CC by SA, please stop playing semantics
From: Anthony
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 9:49:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:25
Anthony,
If you don't mind, let's be specific.
Which edits are yours? (Were you User:Anthony?)
Who, if anyone, do you believe is presently infringing your rights
such that you feel corrective action is necessary to satisfy your
expectations as an author? What action do you want to see taken?
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> You are wrong my friend. When you hit that little button, you agreed to
> license your contributions under 1.2 or any later version.
Any later version published by the FSF.
> Therefore if the Foundation moves to 1.3, the license trans
You are wrong my friend. When you hit that little button, you agreed to license
your contributions under 1.2 or any later version. Therefore if the Foundation
moves to 1.3, the license transfers. As 1.3 is a dual license, its dual
licensed.
From: Anthony
To
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:57 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>> > I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, I think what's clear is that
>> if
>> > someone is releasing a work under a license, they are not releasing it
>> under
>> > a license that doesn't
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:57 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>
> > I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, I think what's clear is that
> if
> > someone is releasing a work under a license, they are not releasing it
> under
> > a license that doesn't yet exist.
>
> Yes, becaus
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> It doesn't say "or later". It says "or [...] later [...]".
And that is where I bid you "farewell".
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Anthony wrote:
> It allows an MMC Site (presumably, the WMF) to republish the work under
> CC-BY-SA.
Sorry, I forgot to add "on the same site". I shouldn't try to abbreviate -
it says "The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the
site unde
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, I think what's clear is that if
> someone is releasing a work under a license, they are not releasing it under
> a license that doesn't yet exist.
Yes, because Eben Moglen (who would have cleared the "or later"
provision) knows s
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> >> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or
> later".
> >> Try
> >> > again.
> >>
> >> The edit page ha
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or later".
>> Try
>> > again.
>>
>> The edit page has said "or later" as long as I can remember. Are you
>> claiming that it di
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:37 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>
> >> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or
> later".
> >> Try
> >> > again.
>
> >> The edit page has sai
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or later".
>> Try
>> > again.
>> The edit page has said "or later" as long as I can remember. Are you
>> claiming that it didn'
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or later".
> Try
> > again.
>
> The edit page has said "or later" as long as I can remember. Are you
> claiming that it didn't used to? What did it used to
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or later". Try
> again.
The edit page has said "or later" as long as I can remember. Are you
claiming that it didn't used to? What did it used to say and when?
___
found
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerard
> wrote:
> >> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> >> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Gerard
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> WMF advice can't actually construct new terms for the CC b
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I think you misunderstand what we're discussing here. We're
> talking about what forms of attribution are acceptable for
> people using our content under CC-BY-SA. We're saying that
> attribution by URL is acceptable for people using the content
> under CC-BY-SA.
But wh
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Gerard
>> wrote:
>> >> WMF advice can't actually construct new terms for the CC by-sa 3.0.
>> > It can't even release my contributions under CC by-sa 3
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Gerard
> wrote:
>
> >> WMF advice can't actually construct new terms for the CC by-sa 3.0.
>
> > It can't even release my contributions under CC by-sa 3.0, for that
> matter.
>
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> WMF advice can't actually construct new terms for the CC by-sa 3.0.
> It can't even release my contributions under CC by-sa 3.0, for that matter.
No, but you did with the "or later." Stop FUDding.
- d.
__
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>
> > In the context of an encyclopedia or encyclopedia article, what
> attribution
> > means seems clear, listing the names or the pseudonyms of the authors.
> That
> > I'm apt to not raise a fuss over a reuser who fail
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> In the context of an encyclopedia or encyclopedia article, what attribution
> means seems clear, listing the names or the pseudonyms of the authors. That
> I'm apt to not raise a fuss over a reuser who fails to do this in certain
> situations (e.g. where that list is just a
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Michael Snow
> wrote:
> >
> >> Anthony wrote:
> >>
> a) a link (URL) to the history page of the article
> or other page that contains the authorship
> information of the arti
2009/3/16 Ray Saintonge :
> So, if I want to give to give a mug with an erotic description of the
> Kama Sutra to my girl friend, I also need to give her this list of
> authors. Are there really people here who would be so law-abiding that
> they would threaten their love-life with that kind of an
31 matches
Mail list logo
