Hoi,
When your way of printing information, information that looks utterly
different because of this wish / urge to include all kinds of other
information that cannot be seen on the screen, you create a white elephant.
Be assured that I will not hesitate to advise anyone not to use this tool
when the page as seen on screen is not faithfully reproduced when printed.
Be assured that this is not what you want. When the urge to be "politically
correct" creates output in this way, you will effectively kill off open
content and make it impossible to sell people the idea of Open Content.
Please THINK.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Robert Arustamyan <robert(a)blogpaper.com>
wrote:
Hi,
> Hoi,
> If you assume that your tool is only to be used for GFDL content then
fine,
> but what would you do if the license is a
different one ?? You restrict
the
> use of your tool if you assume GFDL. Given
that it is not unlikely that
> everything in the WMF may go to the CC-by-sa, it is not that brilliant
an
> idea anyway,
>
Gerard, thank you for the topic, we'll consider including other licenses
in one of the next releases.
Well, the license can probably be updated easily (even site-specific).
And we're still GFDL, mostly...
What would be neat (and neccessary at some point): Incorporate the
license information for each image used. Because /these/ can be
different than GFDL.
You might be able to use my Commons API for this in the near future:
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonsapi.php<http://toolserver.org/%7Ema…
provided the images are on Commons. For images on the wikipedias, just
include the image page.
Magnus, it's a good idea to incorporate license information for each
image. Thanks for giving opportunity to use your API.
Regards,
Robert
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l