Hoi,
Uploading material that is incompatible with our license, I would personally
consider it a bad faith move. Only when it is considered that the inclusion
of a GFDL file is similar to fair use within the context of a Wikipedia
clone would it be acceptable. This however possibly negates the
Hello,
Wikimedia prefers material under a CC license but it will stay possible to
upload gfdl only material.
But whenever its possible try to upload it under a cc-by license or a dual
license.
Best regards,
Huib
--
Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor
Felipe Ortega, 25/07/2009 18:06:
* The main proportion of Featured Articles in all top-ten language versions
needed, at least, more than 1,000 days (3 years) to reach that level.
But I often see that even an old, quiescent page is completely
re-written or significantly improved by an expert
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Gerard
Meijssengerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that all of our material can not be made available under the
CC-by-sa license because of some people insisting on using the wrong
license is beyond me. The fact that we insist that the two licenses are
Hoi,
Please note that I only call for no more new uploads of GFDL material. Also
my main argument is ignored; the ability and surety that such documents can
be legally used by our downstream users of our content.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/8/4 Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com
On Tue, Aug 4,
Marco Chiesa wrote:
Commons accepts materials that are free according to
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition GFDL works fall within that
definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and
we've called Wikipedia the free encyclopedia all the time, so we
cannot just dismiss
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim Starling wrote:
I wrote:
I'm taking Stevertigo off moderation. He has agreed by private
email not to continue the dispute resolution mailing list thread.
I also asked him to not make me immediately regret my decision, and
to let this thing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cary Bass wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
I wrote:
I'm taking Stevertigo off moderation. He has agreed by private
email not to continue the dispute resolution mailing list
thread.
I also asked him to not make me immediately regret my decision,
and
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
[snip]
I cannot fathom why you would limit media to being released only under
the GFDL unless it was designed specifically for incorporation into a
GFDL work. It's a documentation license, not a media license, and when
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
[snip]
I cannot fathom why you would limit media to being released only under
the GFDL unless it was designed specifically for incorporation into a
GFDL work. It's a documentation license, not
Michael Snow wrote:
Marco Chiesa wrote:
Commons accepts materials that are free according to
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition GFDL works fall within that
definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and
we've called Wikipedia the free encyclopedia all the time, so
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Marco Chiesa wrote:
Commons accepts materials that are free according to
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition GFDL works fall within that
definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and
we've called Wikipedia
12 matches
Mail list logo
