2009/2/1 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
>> either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
>> before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a
>> book first and added
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
> either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
> before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a
> book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license was a
2009/1/30 Andrew Gray :
> 2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
>> either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
>> before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a
>> book first and added to Wi
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> First, we think it's wonderful that O'Reilly has done this; TMM is a
> fantastic book and a great introduction for newbies. (We have been
> giving copies away as gifts for a while.) I believe Frank is planning
> to blog about this in more deta
2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton :
> The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
> either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
> before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a
> book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license w
Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/1/28 geni:
>
>> Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
>> switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
>>
> Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
> sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
> license under
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/28 effe iets anders :
>
>> Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
>> Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
>> agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.
>>
>> Why not just copy i
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth :
>
>> Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
>> special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.
>>
> We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means
> Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)
Okay, I'll move it to the image description page soon if someone hasn't done
it already.
- Chris
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chris Down
> wrote:
> > That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either.
> >
> > - Chr
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chris Down
wrote:
> That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either.
>
> - Chris
The original is however referenced in the image caption on the page
where it is used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Appendixe
well if they/john bought the image rights then they would own it, meaning
that the credit is sufficient as it is.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Chris Down
wrote:
> That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either.
>
> - Chris
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Roh
That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either.
- Chris
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1e29885.png
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie)
thanks
seems to me that they are on images which they own copyright on, so maybe
its just that the files theyve used were from an online version or
something?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1e29885.png
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie)
wrote:
> i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of an
> image where the watermark can be clearly seen and is an
i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of an
image where the watermark can be clearly seen and is an issue?
regards
mark
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Chris Down
wrote:
> Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without the
> watermark.
>
Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without the
watermark.
- Chris
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As always,
> come
> up with better illustrations and you can replace them. T
Hoi,
As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As always, come
up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an
extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other "rule;
Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/29
As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. IUP
states that this should not occur.
- Chris
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth :
> > Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
> > special exception to every rule to allow thi
2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth :
> Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
> special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.
We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means
Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)
___
I hate to say it, but it would probably flourish best on Wikipedia,
since there are more knowledgable wikipedians on that site with a
vested interest to make the book better. The question is more one of
appropriateness, does Wikipedia want to host books, even books about
Wikipedia? Wikibooks has po
2009/1/28 effe iets anders :
> Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
> Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
> agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.
>
> Why not just copy it and see where it flourishes bes
Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.
Why not just copy it and see where it flourishes best?
Best regards,
Lodewijk
2009/1/28
2009/1/28 Chad :
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen :
>> > Hoi,
>> > You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
>> > can relicense it to anything he likes.
>>
>> Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen :
> > Hoi,
> > You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
> > can relicense it to anything he likes.
>
> Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I
> can't im
2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
> can relicense it to anything he likes.
Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I
can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need to be deleted.
__
2009/1/28 Andrew Gray :
> 2009/1/28 geni :
>
>>> Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
>>> sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
>>> license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is this a special
>>> case?
>>>
>>> The CC switch, when and if
2009/1/28 geni :
>> Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
>> sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
>> license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is this a special
>> case?
>>
>> The CC switch, when and if it happens, will be complex enou
Hi Gerard,
pls remain polite and dont call names.
teun
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
> can relicense it to anything he likes.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2009/1/28 geni
>
> > 2009/1/
The resulting work will be welcome at Wikibooks. But I'm unclear
why you can't have someone getting paid to write content on a
Wikimedia wiki? One of our bureaucrats Whiteknight is currently
doing this as part of his employment for the Perl Foundation:
http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> I'm obviously in favor of having more books at Wikibooks, but then
> again it does make some sense to keep the documentation close to the
> website it documents. If the book is GFDL, couldn't we just copy/fork
> it to Wikibooks too?
Agre
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
>
> My reaction when I spotted this was
2009/1/28 Andrew Gray :
> 2009/1/28 geni :
>
>> Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
>> switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
>
> Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
> sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
> license under GF
2009/1/28 Erik Moeller :
> First, we think it's wonderful that O'Reilly has done this; TMM is a
> fantastic book and a great introduction for newbies. (We have been
> giving copies away as gifts for a while.)
Also, as the O'Reilly press release notes, it's John who took the
initiative to make this
2009/1/28 geni :
> Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
> switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is
Hoi,
You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
can relicense it to anything he likes.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/28 geni
> 2009/1/28 Michael Peel :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> > uploaded the book to
Hoi,
You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
can relicense it to anything he likes.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/28 geni
> 2009/1/28 Michael Peel :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> > uploaded the book to
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:14 AM, geni wrote:
> Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
> switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
Unless it was relicensed. And it would surprise me if they genuinely
objected to such relicensing...
--
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik
2009/1/28 Michael Peel :
> Hi all,
>
> The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
> uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
>
> My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but shouldn't this b
First, we think it's wonderful that O'Reilly has done this; TMM is a
fantastic book and a great introduction for newbies. (We have been
giving copies away as gifts for a while.) I believe Frank is planning
to blog about this in more detail soon. Please do show them some love
for doing this; it's ob
Hoi,
Let us fist congratulate O'Reilley and John Broughton with their decision to
make their work available to us. This is in my opinion excellent news. The
question where this manual should be is not that straight forward. Wikipedia
NEEDS better help text and this truly puts all this information w
Hi all,
The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but shouldn't this be on
Wikibooks? Part of the author
41 matches
Mail list logo