I found a few apparent legal problems while translating the license
update documents. Apologies if these have already been discussed to
death - I didn't follow earlier debates, and the archives are mostly
useless as a knowledge base.
== revision not specified ==
The TOS says that reusers have to
> the archives are mostly useless as a knowledge base.
This is false and you know it. Several of these questions *have* been
debated here and with a few simple searches you could be well on your way to
reading the discussions.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> I found a few
A pet peeve of mine; I don't think telling anyone what THEY know or
don't know over the internet is worthwhile in most cases.
-Dan
On Apr 14, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Brian wrote:
>> the archives are mostly useless as a knowledge base.
>
> This is false and you know it. Several of these questions *hav
The only way to conclude that the archives are a worthless knowledge base
would be to attempt several search queries over them and find no relevant
results. Since results would have been found had reasonable searches been
attempted we know that the complaint is likely to be fake.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2
--- On Tue, 4/14/09, Brian wrote:
> From: Brian
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Problems with the new license TOS
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 12:13 PM
> > the archives are mostly useless
> as a knowledge base.
>
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Brian wrote:
>
>> From: Brian
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Problems with the new license TOS
>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>> Date: Tuesday, Apri
You guys are in the stone age ^_^
In gmail:
list:foundation-l keyword
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Chad wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Birgitte SB
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Brian wrote:
> >
> >> From: Brian
&
2009/4/14 Brian :
> You guys are in the stone age ^_^
>
> In gmail:
>
> list:foundation-l keyword
>
Or onwiki:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers/Oppositional_arguments
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
founda
;> >
>> >
>> > --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Brian wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Brian
>> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Problems with the new license TOS
>> >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
>> foundatio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chad wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Brian wrote:
>> You guys are in the stone age ^_^
>>
>> In gmail:
>>
>> list:foundation-l keyword
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Chad wrote:
>>
>>> Seconded. FWIW, the archives are a completely us
Hi all,
Could we please summarize the outcome of the long discussions on this
subject instead of discussing different external search services to the
mailing list? (No doubt one can learn a lot about the different external
possibilities not offered via the list.wikimedia.org site, yet I would like
http://www.google.com/search?q=foundation-l+summary
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Bence Damokos wrote:
> Hi all,
> Could we please summarize the outcome of the long discussions on this
> subject instead of discussing different external search services to the
> mailing list? (No doubt one can
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Bence Damokos wrote:
> Hi all,
> Could we please summarize the outcome of the long discussions on this
> subject instead of discussing different external search services to the
> mailing list?
What is it specifically that you want to know? The discussions on th
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Bence Damokos wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> Could we please summarize the outcome of the long discussions on this
>>> subject instead of discussing different external search services to the
>>> mailing list?
>>>
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Bence Damokos wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Could we please summarize the outcome of the long discussions on this
>> subject instead of discussing different external search services to the
>> mailing list?
>
> What is it sp
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > Anthony wrote:
> >> What is it specifically that you want to know? The discussions on this
> >> mailing list were largely for the benefit of those involved in the
> >> discussion, not for others to get a summary afterward. Furthe
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > Anthony wrote:
> >> Are you strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual property"? Vote
> for
> >> the change.
> >>
> I don't see how this is warranted. As it stands the TOS proposed
> is certainl
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> > Anthony wrote:
>>
> >> Do you believe that the right to attribution is a fundamental natural
>> right
>> >> which is hel
Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>> wrote:
>>
>
>
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony wrote:
>>>
Are you strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual property"? Vote
>> for
>>
the change.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't consider Moeller the main proponent of the current
> proposal in any meaningful way; except in the very narrow
> sense that Moeller is admirably acting to employ "the art
> of the possible", and theref
--- On Fri, 4/17/09, Anthony wrote:
>
> In any case, this proposal certainly *will* undermine the
> individual right
> to attribution held by individual contributors, so anyone
> who supports that
> right *should* vote against the proposal or refuse to vote
> at all. If you
> want to nitpic
Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I don't consider Moeller the main proponent of the current
>> proposal in any meaningful way; except in the very narrow
>> sense that Moeller is admirably acting to employ "the art
>>
Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> I don't think the word "indisputably" means what you think it does.
>>
>> Even if I agree on a very broad level that the phrasing is mildly
>> confusing to our re-users, and certain
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> > cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I don't consider Moeller the main proponent of the current
> >> proposal in any meaningful way; except in the
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> What is changed are precisely the things that RMS himself has
> said are provisions of the GFDL that are a poor fit for us. That
> is the issue, plain and simple.
I think it's enough to say that it changes things that some of the
c
2009/4/17 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice
>
> I don't consider Moeller the main proponent of the current
> proposal in any meaningful way; except in the very narrow
> sense that Moeller is admirably acting to employ "the art
> of the possible", and therefore
26 matches
Mail list logo
