2009/6/25 John at Darkstar :
> Could there be some updates to
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation as this
> page says the roll-out will start at 15. June, while
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2009-June/000959.html
> says new messages are to be roll
Could there be some updates to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation as this
page says the roll-out will start at 15. June, while
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2009-June/000959.html
says new messages are to be rolled out "as early as Monday, June 29". I
2009/6/18 Brian :
> What do you consider to be "new content" ? Newly started articles, or new
> edits?
Either.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
What do you consider to be "new content" ? Newly started articles, or new
edits?
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/6/18 Brian :
> > It's more than a concession isn't it? The GFDL has the "or any later
> > version" clause. The CC-BY-SA is not a later version of the GFDL
2009/6/18 Brian :
> It's more than a concession isn't it? The GFDL has the "or any later
> version" clause. The CC-BY-SA is not a later version of the GFDL. I think we
> have to keep it forever and ever.
Existing content will always be available under the GFDL regardless of
what the WMF does, the
It's more than a concession isn't it? The GFDL has the "or any later
version" clause. The CC-BY-SA is not a later version of the GFDL. I think we
have to keep it forever and ever.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/6/18 Stephen Bain :
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:00 AM
2009/6/18 Stephen Bain :
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>> Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of
>> re-users,
> ...
>
> If this is the Foundation's view, why did it opt to push for (hobbled)
> dual-licencing going forward, instead of transitioning complete
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of
> re-users,
...
If this is the Foundation's view, why did it opt to push for (hobbled)
dual-licencing going forward, instead of transitioning completely to
CC-BY-SA and retaining GFDL onl
2009/6/18 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/6/18 Thomas Dalton :
>> That seems reasonable to me, but I would say "alternative terms"
>> rather than "additional terms". Additional terms suggests you have to
>> follow them in addition to the CC ones, which isn't the case.
>
> The logic behind "additional" is tha
2009/6/18 Thomas Dalton :
> That seems reasonable to me, but I would say "alternative terms"
> rather than "additional terms". Additional terms suggests you have to
> follow them in addition to the CC ones, which isn't the case.
The logic behind "additional" is that the phrase says "text is under
2009/6/18 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/6/18 Walter Vermeir :
>> When I look at the updated en.wikipedia.org and [[meta:Licensing
>> update/Implementation]] page I see that site footer only states that the
>> text is licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
>> License".
>>
>> No mention
2009/6/18 Walter Vermeir :
> When I look at the updated en.wikipedia.org and [[meta:Licensing
> update/Implementation]] page I see that site footer only states that the
> text is licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike
> License".
>
> No mention anymore of the good old GNU/FDL.
Erik Moeller schreef:
[cut]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation
>
> Our site-wide roll-out will likely override any project-local
> bottom-up implementation between now and then.
Question;
>From the Q&A about this;
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/D
As per the licensing update decision by the community and the Board,
I've updated the site terms on the English Wikipedia (and the WMF
website) today, and posted a reference copy of the site-wide terms of
use to:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
The Wikimedia Commons licensing tas
14 matches
Mail list logo
