On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
In light of the vote results announced regarding the proposed licensing
update, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has unanimously
passed the following resolution:
Great news everybody. This is indeed an
2009/5/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/5/22 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com:
Hi all,
I saw this news item today;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8061979.stm
and felt that it was tangentially related to the discussions on this list
concerning sexual content on wikimedia -
No opinion means no opinion and should not be interpreted in any way,
the group represents an uncertainty in the result.
John
Erik Moeller skrev:
2009/5/20 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
The licensing update poll has been tallied.
Yes, I am in favor of this change : 13242 (75.8%)
No, I am
I concur. Getting an unsatisfactory response does not mean that you should
bang on about it incessantly.
- Chris
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/5/22 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com:
Hi
+2
skype: node.ue
2009/5/22 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/5/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/5/22 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com:
Hi all,
I saw this news item today;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8061979.stm
and felt that it was tangentially related to the
Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an
abundance of good information.
Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather
than June 15?
I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is no
time to lose : content compatibility with
2009/5/22 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an
abundance of good information.
Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather
than June 15?
I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an
abundance of good information.
Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather
than June 15?
I would like to point out the next
On 2009-05-22 17:57, Stephen Bain wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Liam Wyattliamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikinews has never used GFDL or cc-by-sa, it uses cc-by. Therefore, this
license change will not be affecting Wikinews.
Wikinews only switched to CC-BY-2.5 in September 2005. Before
Hello Everyone,
As you may recall the board was restructured last year around this
time. At that time we asked the chapters to select two board members
for the board. This would happen in the even-numbered years. The three
community seats would be elected in the odd-numbered years.
As was
2009/5/22 Jan-Bart de Vreede janb...@wikimedia.org:
[Snip]
Please join me in welcoming Arne to the board and congratulating
Michael on his re-appointment. On behalf of the board I would like to
thank all those involved in facilitating the process and making these
appointments possible.
--- On Thu, 5/21/09, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote:
- I'm particularly
keen at the moment
to try and discern whether or not it's possible to move
forward in any way
on this issue, or whether or not we're sort of stuck in the
bed we've made
to date all thoughts and
Hi all,
Thank you for announcing this, Jan-Bart. I'm just as happy that we have
reached a conclusion. There were many discussions before we came to this
conclusion, and I think we have an excellent set of board members here.
Michael has served on the board already for quite a while, and brings in
Welcome, Arne! I look forward to working with you. Thanks to the
chapters for their confidence in us.
--Michael Snow
Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
Hello Everyone,
As you may recall the board was restructured last year around this
time. At that time we asked the chapters to select two board
I have been keeping an eye on what content got imported on English
Wikibooks. If there has been anything imported from offsite GFDL-only
sources I'm not aware of it. To be honest though, that's not saying much
- we often have contributors bring us whole books they wrote elsewhere -
but that's not
2009/5/23 Mike.lifeguard mikelifegu...@fastmail.fm:
I have been keeping an eye on what content got imported on English
Wikibooks. If there has been anything imported from offsite GFDL-only
sources I'm not aware of it. To be honest though, that's not saying much
- we often have contributors
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:12 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
What are licensing requirements for Wikibooks and Wikisource? Did they
require GFDL or would any free license do, as is the case for Commons?
Wikibooks is GFDL-only same as WP. WS is, I believe, more focused on
PD material
Robert - thanks for pointing that out. All the more reason to ask any
such sites to consider a dual license if not a relicense of their
collected works. That does remove the incentive to wait.
I have been in favor of the change, but was surprised to realize we
had almost come to the end of the
Wikibooks uses GFDL. We do have some revisions which may be
multi-licensed, but it's probably not safe to assume that any books are
entirely multi-licensed (though some do make that claim).
-Mike
On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 02:12 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
2009/5/23 Mike.lifeguard
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is no
time to lose : content compatibility with other GFDL sites will become
impossible on August 1 -- after then, not only will we no longer be
able to
2009/5/22 Jan-Bart de Vreede janb...@wikimedia.org:
Arne Klempert is Head of Digital Communications at IFOK, a German
consulting firm. He is one of the founders of the German chapter. He
was involved in the development of Wikimedia Deutschland first as vice-
chair and then as Executive
21 matches
Mail list logo
