2009/6/11 Jim Redmond <j...@scrubnugget.com>: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 15:59, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Not really. In the current notice the footnote stuff isn't technically >> required. It's mostly there to provide something to point to if people >> start trying to use the more annoying features of the GFDL. To the >> average editor who wouldn't think of doing that it doesn't really >> matter. > > > True, but my larger point wasn't about the footnote's contents - it was that > the current notice is as short as it is because it links elsewhere for the > actual license details. (Similarly, the current notice links elsewhere to > define "copyright" and "verifiable".) By extension, we can keep the revised > notice relatively brief by using links to refer elsewhere for license text > and/or discussion. > > -- > Jim Redmond > j...@scrubnugget.com
I hope so but isn't something that needs to be done before implementation. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l