I think those links must not be added since it is somehow a form of
advertising for sites like digg or facebook, IMHO. Those who are really
interested in this and really need this should write a JavaScript to allow
such links to be added.
User:Bencmq
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Thomas Dalton
The point is you did not the yet renamed mo to mo-cyrl as stated here (
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/047554.html).
I'll send a remind every month, I want to let you know this is important for
us.
Also I feel responsible for this, since I wrote on my blog that
"mo.
2009/2/7 Cetateanu Moldovanu :
> The point is you did not the yet renamed mo to mo-cyrl as stated here (
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/047554.html).
"You"? I hope you realize this is a mailinglist. The majority of
people who are getting these e-mails aren't capa
Also, I'd like to add:
I feel it is deceptive that you use a pseudonym (Moldovan for
"Moldovan Citizen") rather than your real name. What do you have to
hide? Using your real name gives you more credibility.
Mark
2009/2/7 Mark Williamson :
> 2009/2/7 Cetateanu Moldovanu :
>> The point is you did
2009/2/7 David Gerard :
> 2009/2/4 Anthony :
>
>> Add in the legal questions over the very relicensing itself, and a reuser
>> really isn't in any better of a position than they were when things were
>> GFDL.
>
>
> There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
> trying to spread
2009/2/7 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/2/7 David Gerard :
>> There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
>> trying to spread FUD here doesn't count.
> There's no question in the US. I'm not convinced by "We believe that
> licensing updates that do not fundamentally alter the spirit
2009/2/7 David Gerard :
> 2009/2/7 Thomas Dalton :
>> 2009/2/7 David Gerard :
>
>>> There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
>>> trying to spread FUD here doesn't count.
>
>> There's no question in the US. I'm not convinced by "We believe that
>> licensing updates that do no
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Marc Riddell
> wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>> With that in mind, I am proposing the following:
>>
>> A guideline (or "rule" if you want) stating, Do not make any statement in a
>> discussion that does not contribute constructively towards the advancement
>> of that disc
I don't think this is a good idea because it's basically advertising that
doesn't generate any revenue for us.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/2/7 Thomas Dalton :
> > 2009/2/7 David Gerard :
>
> >> There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
> >> trying to spread FUD here doesn't count.
>
> > There's no question in the US. I'm not convinced by "We believe th
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
11 matches
Mail list logo
