[Licom-l] Document review - motivation for the license change

Fri Mar 20 12:05:17 UTC 2009

Speaking of the work that was done today, it seems to me that
[[/Vote-header]] is quite obsolete now, with [[/Vote-header/Core]] being our
main introduction. Perhaps I'm wrong, but is there any further use for the
former? perhaps we should move /Core to something less complex, like
"/Introduction"?
Josh.

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I've reworked the [[licensing update]] page a bit and have added a
> motivation section per John's suggestion.
>
> I've also split, as you may have noticed, the intro into a separate
> page, so it can be easily transcluded from multiple places - I noticed
> that the two intros (entry page and vote header) were getting out of
> sync.
>
> Thanks to AD for helping with the page layout :-)
>
> There's a thread on foundation-l about the attribution terms and
> CC-BY-SA. The final review from the Creative Commons GC was one of the
> last pieces I needed. I'll wait for some further responses in that
> thread until tomorrow, and then make some updates to the Q&A. I hope
> then we're pretty much ready to go on the document front.
>
> Please let me know if my input is needed anywhere, and I would
> appreciate if you could all take another spin through the core pages.
> :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Erik
>
>
>
> 2009/3/18 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> > I've made some tweaks to the License update page after discussion with
> Mike:
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Licensing_update&diff=1430474&oldid=1429332
> >
> > I've also taken a crack at revising the attribution section in the QA:
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers&diff=prev&oldid=1430483
> >
> > I also concur with John that the primary entry page needs to sum up
> > the case more clearly. I'll do some more document updates tomorrow and
> > hope that we can quickly move towards finalizing the documents as per
> > timeline.
> >
> > Erik
> >
> >
> > 2009/3/18 Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> >> 2009/3/18 Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com>:
> >>> Based on people I've talked to, the most common objection seems to be
> >>> that some people feel CC-BY-SA makes it too easy to reuse content
> >>> without providing "adequate" attribution to authors.  In particular,
> >>> people object to the idea of putting attribution and licensing
> >>> information behind a URL since that may be inaccessible offline or
> >>> subject to failure is webpages move or die.
> >>
> >> I want to note that this is not an inherent property of CC-BY-SA but
> >> rather of the terms of conditions that we're proposing to use
> >> alongside CC-BY-SA. (CC-BY-SA essentially allows the author to specify
> >> their preferred method of attribution.) The attribution section of the
> >> Q&A needs some love; I'll try to focus some attention to it as part of
> >> a general document overhaul today.
> >>
> >> Erik
> >> --
> >> Erik Möller
> >> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
> >>
> >> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Erik Möller
> > Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> _______________________________________________
> Licom-l mailing list
> Licom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/licom-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/licom-l/attachments/20090320/575df790/attachment-0001.htm 