jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Sorry,
> But my question is not if we as a wikimedia group is violating the license,
> but if they as users are.
> I would like a professional opinion on the question :
>
> Is wikipedia non commercial or commercial non profit?
>
>
It's hard to say as l
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>> Basically I am worred about these student versions of windows
>> "infecting" open source projects with illegal contributions.
>>
>> Just a crazy idea that has b
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> Basically I am worred about these student versions of windows
> "infecting" open source projects with illegal contributions.
>
> Just a crazy idea that has been following me.
Rest assured, it is simply a crazy idea. Micr
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:47 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Basically I am worred about these student versions of windows
> "infecting" open source projects with illegal contributions.
>
Nikola Smolenski answered that: "Whatever licenses they are vi
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>> I've never heard of a major software company hauling
>> someone to court over a non-commercial/educational use license, and
>> while it's probably happened I doubt it's a frequent occurr
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:19 PM, wrote:
> You can't combine a CC-BY work with a CC-BY-SA work without either
> imposing a SA limitation on the CC-BY work,
Which anyone can do when combining CC-By and CC-By-SA works by others.
(If you don't want people adding random limitations to your works;
do
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I've never heard of a major software company hauling
> someone to court over a non-commercial/educational use license, and
> while it's probably happened I doubt it's a frequent occurrence.
>
Probably doesn't fit your "major software comp
Hay (Husky) wrote:
>
> That's why it's so important, for projects like ours, to use a
> license such as BY-SA that it usable by anyone, at anytime, for any
> purpose without that ambiguity.
>
Except that it is not, the SA license ghettoizes the work just as an NC
licenses does. The only differen
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:04 PM, wrote:
> It makes no difference. Wikipedia licenses everything on for commercial
> use. As you cannot relicense someone else's work, you cannot use a NC
> license worked. Most NC licensees probably wouldn't mind wikipedia
> reusing stuff, but they don't want big m
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Sorry,
> But my question is not if we as a wikimedia group is violating the license,
> but if they as users are.
> I would like a professional opinion on the question :
>
> Is wikipedia non commercial or commercial non profit?
>
It makes no difference.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:55 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
wrote:
>> I would like a professional opinion on the question :
> Better stated, I would like your opinion on this, if it is not off topic.
>> Is wikipedia non commercial or commercial non profit?
> Is working on the wikipedia mor
> I would like a professional opinion on the question :
Better stated, I would like your opinion on this, if it is not off topic.
> Is wikipedia non commercial or commercial non profit?
Is working on the wikipedia more like a commercial non profit work and
not really non commecial in terms of th
Sorry,
But my question is not if we as a wikimedia group is violating the license,
but if they as users are.
I would like a professional opinion on the question :
Is wikipedia non commercial or commercial non profit?
thanks,
mike
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> Yeah. Not the most desired outcome for the creator, though.
>
> One of the benefits of CC is to encourage worry-free distribution by
> helping creators be entirely up-front about what they're happy to have
> happen with their material, but this
2009/9/15 Mike Linksvayer :
> It's not that bad. What you see is a scale where 1=noncommercial and
> 100=commercial, and creators rated the case you mention 59.2 on that
> scale, users 71.7 -- so creators see that case as less commercial than
> users, which is ideal if fewer disputes are a good ou
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Mike Linksvayer
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Andrew Gray
> wrote:
> > One interesting example the blog post brings up - a
> > nonprofit-with-ads, paying for hosting costs that way, is that
> > commercial? 60% of creators say it is non-commercial, wh
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
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 licenses suck because it's unclear
> what they mean?
Not
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 licenses suck because it's unclear
what they mean?
___
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> It is my opinion that we should be careful of people who are using
>> restricted software
>> for contributions because it might be in violation of some licenses.
>
> No, we should not. Whatever lic
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
> It is my opinion that we should be careful of people who are using
> restricted software
> for contributions because it might be in violation of some licenses.
No, we should not. Whatever licenses they are violating, we are not a
party to these licenses and
This brings up my favorite subject:
Is working on Free software or Wikipedia defined as Commercial non profit work?
It is my opinion that we should be careful of people who are using
restricted software
for contributions because it might be in violation of some licenses.
commercial business activ
This might interest some of you:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial
This is the long-awaited study on a large survey on how people
interpret the terms "non-commercial" and "commercial", like in the
NC-licenses from Creative Commons. Pretty interesting stuff for people
intereste
23 matches
Mail list logo
