Large corporations should not be allowed to violate copyleft. If they are
creating derivative products from Wikipedia -- which they are -- those
derivative products should be released under CC-BY-SA.
Google Knowledge Graph seems to be somewhat close, in that there is an API
> That's a completely different and unrelated issue to the thread YOU stated.
The issues share the commonalities of user friendliness/design and a
Foundation decision on the question of presentation vs. editor
attraction and retention.
> Please stick to the topic at hand or start a new thread.
That's a completely different and unrelated issue to the thread YOU stated.
Whilst I'm impressed at your willingness to hijack your own thread to refer
to a completely unrelated topic after only one response, it is unsurprising
and I'm personally bored of it.
Please stick to the topic at hand or
> I don't think it's particularly user/design friendly
How does the Foundation choose between presentation advantages for
commercial users, and advantages for attracting and retaining editors?
Is the request to try the word "edit" instead of a pencil icon on
mobile a good example of the
I don't think it's particularly user/design friendly
Seddon
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, 16:22 James Salsman, wrote:
> I wanted to share this because it's pertinent to issues with large
> companies using our information without complying with the license
> terms:
>
>
>
I wanted to share this because it's pertinent to issues with large
companies using our information without complying with the license
terms:
https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_galloway_how_amazon_apple_facebook_and_google_manipulate_our_emotions
One discussions I've had with both Erik Moeller