Registration is now open for the CC
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Global_Summit_2011 September 16-18 in
Warsaw.
Versioning the CC license suite will be a (the) major topic of the
summit, which will launch a long process of developing version 4.0.
All of the topics raised in the years before Wiki
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> I for one am very keen to see us use this system, if for no other reason
> than it leverages the existing visibility of the Creative Commons
> machine-readable licensing structure. The CC-Public Domain Mark is not
> actually doing anything new/
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> While reading the FAQ of Creative Commons about the new Public Domain
> Mark, I wondered what are the consequences for our projects. Will I
> use PDM in future anyhow on Commons, for example?
>
Hopefully the main consequence is that the PDM
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/9/15 Anthony :
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Hay (Husky) wrote:
>>> with its 255 pages
>>> this might be something that you would rather like to skim through
>>> instead of fully read :)
>>
>> Anything to disrupt my view that the NC
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> I'm happy to see that work is already being coordinated here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Outreach
>
> As many people as possible should join in this effort and spread the
> word.
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Anthony wrote:
> I see you've posted a blog post (
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13232) which suggests that
> attribution by link was added in 2.5. You point to this a blog post by Mia
> Garlick (http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447) announcing
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer :
>> Yes.
>>
>> Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her)
>
> And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the
> line of reasoning?
The question was whether attributio
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Erik Moeller :
>> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
>>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>>> CC lawyers?
>>
>> We've been in repeated
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
> CC are most likely to go along with what is sensible and are very
> likely to listen to WMF when defining 'sensible'.
I have little doubt that's the case.
> The license as it is
> is pretty damn close to good enough (hence the dropping of the
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> We are discussing all kinds of "arguments" around the license change from
> GFDL to CC-by-sa. I am not impressed at all by the quality of the arguments.
> It seems to me that there are two trains of thought. There are the people
> who want T
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> WMF used to really be a (choose a heavy-weight designation) pound
> gorilla in the GFDL users pool.
>
> When we transition to the Creative Commons universe, we will
> never again regain that status, and a combative stance will
> do us
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Anthony writes:
>
>> "the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License"
>>
>> There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Licenses.
>
> [citation needed]
There are 74 due to versioning and jurisdiction ports, see
http://cre
12 matches
Mail list logo
