> You know ... I can't think of a single instance in which I've ever seen
> Wikipedia content reused in which the GFDL was followed. In EVERY
> instance,
> the attribution has either been messed up or omitted altogether.
>
> I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course.
>
> Newyorkbrad
As one o
You know ... I can't think of a single instance in which I've ever seen
Wikipedia content reused in which the GFDL was followed. In EVERY instance,
the attribution has either been messed up or omitted altogether.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course.
Newyorkbrad
On Thu, May 28, 2009 a
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:57 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/5/28 David Goodman :
> >Free culture arose to permit
> > reuse, and should continue that way. We should simply have told the
> > FSF: At least when dealign with text, we regard all CC-BY licenses as
> > compatible with each other and with GFDL
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:51 AM, David Goodman wrote:
> We should simply have told the
> FSF: At least when dealign with text, we regard all CC-BY licenses as
> compatible with each other and with GFDL, and therefore there's
> nothing that needs to be negotiated. Anyone who wants to use our
> co
That is seriously good news and demonstrates Wikimedia's leadership in
the field yet again.
On May 28, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Kat Walsh wrote:
> Another step towards an open web -- Google's Chrome browser is going
> to support Theora video natively with the HTML5 video tag:
> http://blog.internetn
El 5/28/09 1:56 PM, Kat Walsh escribió:
> Another step towards an open web -- Google's Chrome browser is going
> to support Theora video natively with the HTML5 video tag:
> http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/05/google-chrome-3-adds-html5.html
> http://codereview.chromium.org/115625/diff/1/2
Another step towards an open web -- Google's Chrome browser is going
to support Theora video natively with the HTML5 video tag:
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/05/google-chrome-3-adds-html5.html
http://codereview.chromium.org/115625/diff/1/2
(Mozilla has already committed to this--and fu
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:51 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> regardless of lthe licensing zealots. Free culture arose to permit
> reuse, and should continue that way. We should simply have told the
So it did. Wikipedia follows much stricter rules of reuse, which is
fair, as it is expected to withsta
> 2009/5/28 David Goodman :
>> The solution, as with international affairs, is tolerance. In this
>> case, the practical aceptance of all free licenses as equivalent,
>> regardless of lthe licensing zealots. Free culture arose to permit
>> reuse, and should continue that way. We should  simply hav
2009/5/28 David Goodman :
> The solution, as with international affairs, is tolerance. In this
> case, the practical aceptance of all free licenses as equivalent,
> regardless of lthe licensing zealots.
Comparing Affero to just about any other free license shows that to be
completely false.
>Free
2009/5/28 David Goodman :
> The solution, as with international affairs, is tolerance. In this
> case, the practical aceptance of all free licenses as equivalent,
> regardless of lthe licensing zealots. Free culture arose to permit
> reuse, and should continue that way. We should simply have told
The solution, as with international affairs, is tolerance. In this
case, the practical aceptance of all free licenses as equivalent,
regardless of lthe licensing zealots. Free culture arose to permit
reuse, and should continue that way. We should simply have told the
FSF: At least when dealign wi
2009/5/28 Ray Saintonge :
> Samuel Klein wrote:
>>> As much as anything else it is the short time frame that will look
>>> pushy. Wikipedia went through a lot of debate *before* the switch, and
>>>
>> The timeframe is a problem, absolutely.
>>
>
> If we were so fortunate as to have that as the onl
Samuel Klein wrote:
>> As much as anything else it is the short time frame that will look
>> pushy. Wikipedia went through a lot of debate *before* the switch, and
>>
> The timeframe is a problem, absolutely.
>
If we were so fortunate as to have that as the only problem, there would
be n
> > the internal debates of others should not matter less. As I understand
> > what is being said they will still be able to import from WMF projects;
>
> For a limited time - until some bit of cc-sa material is incorporated
> into a given article.
They'll still be able to incorporate any of the
> As much as anything else it is the short time frame that will look
> pushy. Wikipedia went through a lot of debate *before* the switch, and
The timeframe is a problem, absolutely.
> the internal debates of others should not matter less. As I understand
> what is being said they will still be
Samuel Klein wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
>>
>>> The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing
>>> and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the
>>> issue and few people caring. From a legal point of view that
2009/5/28 Ray Saintonge :
> effe iets anders wrote:
>>
>> Which makes me wonder how a judge would rule on this btw. Because if
>> the GFDL and CCBYSA are enough similar before the deadline to
>> interchange, why wouldn't they be afterwards? Except for that line in
>> the GFDL version, I don't see l
18 matches
Mail list logo
