On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>
>> This is very important. Wikis licensed under the GFDL after August 1st
>> will not be compatible with Wikimedia wikis.
>>
>> Those wikis will sometimes be able to pull from Wikimedia pr
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> This is very important. Wikis licensed under the GFDL after August 1st
> will not be compatible with Wikimedia wikis.
>
> Those wikis will sometimes be able to pull from Wikimedia projects but
> will never be able to merge their content in
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/
> There are hundreds of educational sites with excellent material that
> have chosen their current GFDL license in order to be compatible with
> Wikipedia. Some of them will not be able to decide to switch
> licensing terms by August 1; others do not qualify for the
> license-switching option in
--- On Sat, 5/23/09, effe iets anders wrote:
> From: effe iets anders
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Saturday, May 23, 2009, 4:00 AM
> 2009/5/23 David Gerard
>
> > 2009/5/23 Mike
2009/5/23 David Gerard
> 2009/5/23 Mike.lifeguard :
>
> > I have been keeping an eye on what content got imported on English
> > Wikibooks. If there has been anything imported from offsite GFDL-only
> > sources I'm not aware of it. To be honest though, that's not saying much
> > - we often have c
also, Dutch Wikibooks made the switch for all new content after 15 April
2007 already for the dual license CC-BY-SA / GFDL, so nothing new here for
them, except that old content will finally /all/ be dual licensed :) (no
more exceptions on pages with older versions).
A big notice in the general si
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is no
> time to lose : content compatibility with other GFDL sites will become
> impossible on August 1 -- after then, not only will we no longer be
> able to import materials cu
Wikibooks uses GFDL. We do have some revisions which may be
multi-licensed, but it's probably not safe to assume that any books are
entirely multi-licensed (though some do make that claim).
-Mike
On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 02:12 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/5/23 Mike.lifeguard :
>
> > I have be
Robert - thanks for pointing that out. All the more reason to ask any
such sites to consider a dual license if not a relicense of their
collected works. That does remove the incentive to wait.
I have been in favor of the change, but was surprised to realize we
had almost come to the end of the w
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:12 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> What are licensing requirements for Wikibooks and Wikisource? Did they
> require GFDL or would any free license do, as is the case for Commons?
Wikibooks is GFDL-only same as WP. WS is, I believe, more focused on
PD material (but I seem to re
2009/5/23 Mike.lifeguard :
> I have been keeping an eye on what content got imported on English
> Wikibooks. If there has been anything imported from offsite GFDL-only
> sources I'm not aware of it. To be honest though, that's not saying much
> - we often have contributors bring us whole books the
I have been keeping an eye on what content got imported on English
Wikibooks. If there has been anything imported from offsite GFDL-only
sources I'm not aware of it. To be honest though, that's not saying much
- we often have contributors bring us whole books they wrote elsewhere -
but that's not a
On 2009-05-22 17:57, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
>> Wikinews has never used GFDL or cc-by-sa, it uses cc-by. Therefore, this
>> license change will not be affecting Wikinews.
>
> Wikinews only switched to CC-BY-2.5 in September 2005. Before that
> many
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
>
> Wikinews has never used GFDL or cc-by-sa, it uses cc-by. Therefore, this
> license change will not be affecting Wikinews.
Wikinews only switched to CC-BY-2.5 in September 2005. Before that
many versions required contributions to be released i
Congratulations to everyone involved in the effort to get this happening!
It's been a long road - a longer road than many of us have seen.
Just a quick point I'd like to raise about Wikinews in relation to the
license change.
Wikinews has never used GFDL or cc-by-sa, it uses cc-by. Therefore, thi
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> Incidentally, the news coverage of this event so far has been quite
> limited, which makes it more important that we have an outreach effort
> to communicate what is happening to other GFDL projects that may wish
> to change.
Speaking of wh
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an
> abundance of good information.
>
> Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather
> than June 15?
>
> I would like to point out the next major step, fo
2009/5/22 Samuel Klein :
> Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an
> abundance of good information.
>
> Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather
> than June 15?
>
> I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is no
> time to
Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an
abundance of good information.
Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather
than June 15?
I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is no
time to lose : content compatibility with othe
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> In light of the vote results announced regarding the proposed licensing
> update, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has unanimously
> passed the following resolution:
Great news everybody. This is indeed an important day for free
cult
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Once again, a big *thank you* to the licensing committee for
> administering the voting process. All the volunteers on the committee
> have been hugely helpful. I want to especially mention Robert Rohde,
> without whom the result probably wouldn't have been ready last week.
>
2009/5/21 Michael Snow :
> In light of the vote results announced regarding the proposed licensing
> update, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has unanimously
> passed the following resolution:
>
> Resolved that:
>
> Whereas the Wikimedia community, in a project-wide vote, has expressed
>
2009/5/21 Michael Snow :
> In light of the vote results announced regarding the proposed licensing
> update, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has unanimously
> passed the following resolution:
>
> Resolved that:
>
> Whereas the Wikimedia community, in a project-wide vote, has expressed
>
In light of the vote results announced regarding the proposed licensing
update, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has unanimously
passed the following resolution:
Resolved that:
Whereas the Wikimedia community, in a project-wide vote, has expressed
very strong support for changing the
25 matches
Mail list logo
