On 27 November 2011 15:14, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>> Honestly both solutions are kind of ugly because they mess up
>> edits history. If some data is PD then it should be possible to just
>> retain it in the event of a license change, the SQL query is unlikely
>> to c
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> Honestly both solutions are kind of ugly because they mess up
> edits history. If some data is PD then it should be possible to just
> retain it in the event of a license change, the SQL query is unlikely
> to change its legal status.
Surely you understand that the
On 27 November 2011 14:10, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Mike N. wrote:
>> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>> there are some people whose edits we know we can keep somehow (even if
>>> someone has to manually copy them and upload under their own account)
>> Is this a way that we might be able to retain a
>> de
Mike N. wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> there are some people whose edits we know we can keep somehow (even if
>> someone has to manually copy them and upload under their own account)
> Is this a way that we might be able to retain a
> declared-PD-but-CT-declining mapper's contributions?
Yes.
T
[From Talk..]
On 11/26/2011 1:01 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
there are some people whose edits we know we can keep somehow (even if
someone has to manually copy them and upload under their own account)
Is this a way that we might be able to retain a
declared-PD-but-CT-declining mapper's contrib
