Jim Redmond wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:11, Florence Devouard wrote:
>
>> By the way, is that completely normal that the site notice on the
>> english wikipedia is occupied by Wikimania scholarship rather than by
>> the change of licence ?
>>
>> With all due respect to Wikimania, it seems
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:11, Florence Devouard wrote:
> By the way, is that completely normal that the site notice on the
> english wikipedia is occupied by Wikimania scholarship rather than by
> the change of licence ?
>
> With all due respect to Wikimania, it seems to me the impact of the
> l
2009/4/20 Florence Devouard :
> Whilst the text of the resolution adopted in december 2007
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update
> Refers to
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/
To my knowledge, the jurisdictional variant URL wasn't intentionally
chosen in
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
> By the way, is that completely normal that the site notice on the
> english wikipedia is occupied by Wikimania scholarship rather than by
> the change of licence ?
>
> With all due respect to Wikimania, it seems to me the impact of the
>
Florence Devouard wrote:
> Someone asked me a question on the French wikipedia and to be fair, I am
> not sure what to answer.
>
> The CURRENT text of the licencing proposition gives a link to
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>
>
> Whilst the text of the resolution adopted in d
Someone asked me a question on the French wikipedia and to be fair, I am
not sure what to answer.
The CURRENT text of the licencing proposition gives a link to
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Whilst the text of the resolution adopted in december 2007
http://wikimediafoundation.o
