2009/5/29 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com:
You know ... I can't think of a single instance in which I've ever seen
Wikipedia content reused in which the GFDL was followed. In EVERY instance,
the attribution has either been messed up or omitted altogether.
I'm not saying this is
Hoi,
We have been testing the LocalisationUpdate extension for some time now and,
we consider it quite good at the moment. We have been testing it in a test
environment and we would like to expand our testing to MediaWiki wikis that
do not run in English or any of the other languages that are
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:00 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ditching the GFDL in favour of a licence that's actually possible to
keep to in practice is one of the best ideas ever.
You haven't ditched the GFDL though. In fact, the success of your
relicensing relies on the claim
2009/5/29 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:00 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ditching the GFDL in favour of a licence that's actually possible to
keep to in practice is one of the best ideas ever.
You haven't ditched the GFDL though. In fact, the success of
Yep, good news indeed :)
Kat Walsh wrote:
Another step towards an open web -- Google's Chrome browser is going
to support Theora video natively with the HTML5 video tag:
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/05/google-chrome-3-adds-html5.html
http://codereview.chromium.org/115625/diff/1/2
Probably, some of you already saw that Google made something for which
I think that it will be the new form of the mainstream Internet
perception. You may read Slashdot article [1], a good description at
the blog Google Operating System [2] (not officially connected with
Google) and, of course,
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
Probably, some of you already saw that Google made something for which
I think that it will be the new form of the mainstream Internet
perception. You may read Slashdot article [1], a good description at
the blog Google
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:09 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/29 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:00 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ditching the GFDL in favour of a licence that's actually possible to
keep to in practice is one of the best ideas
Hoi,
A programmer friend of mine has had a look at the documentation that is
already available and wants to integrate MediaWiki and Wave. The one thing
that he wants at this time is access to Wave as a developer and realise this
dream...
The question is how do I get access for him. Wave's demoes
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Very cool. Not sure if I buy into the this is the future of the
internet, but very very cool indeed.
Adding people to a conversation already in progress is cool. The rest of
it...I dunno...what's the point?
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:52 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/29 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I'm not sure where you get the no from. The relicensing was done for
the
sake of third parties, not for Wikipedia sites.
It's means that even if your arguments about wikimedia not
2009/5/29 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
My comment was that the success of your 'relicensing' relies on the claim
that you're following it. In other words, the only reason you claim to be
able to relicense content under CC-BY-SA is because you claim the GFDL
allows you to do that (it doesn't
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Who can help out ?
Erik?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Adding people to a conversation already in progress is cool. The rest of
it...I dunno...what's the point?
Basically, moving the Internet usage from the client-server model to
the peer-to-peer model with auxiliary role of
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Adding people to a conversation already in progress is cool. The rest of
it...I dunno...what's the point?
Basically, moving the Internet usage from the
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Adding people to a conversation already in progress is cool. The rest of
it...I dunno...what's the point?
Basically, moving the Internet usage from
2009/5/30 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
I don't get it... this is just MSN Messenger on steroids. It's a great
idea and if it works it should be really useful, but it isn't
world-changing and certainly isn't going to restructure the internet.
No, no - it's Google Chat on steroids!
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
That would be great, but wouldn't it also mean the death of Google and
pretty much any company which relies on web advertising to make money? How
do you make money off of P2P? Software and data license fees, I guess, but
is
2009/5/30 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
That would be great, but wouldn't it also mean the death of Google and
pretty much any company which relies on web advertising to make money? How
do you make money off of P2P?
2009/5/30 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
It would be whatever on steroids as a proprietary software model or
free-client-proprietary-server model. However, this model have the
same potential as email had a couple of decades ago.
Not really. This isn't that different to existing technology,
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:30 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/29 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
My comment was that the success of your 'relicensing' relies on the
claim
that you're following it. In other words, the only reason you claim to
be
able to relicense content under
2009/5/30 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Once you've established a prima facie case of copyright infringement, the
burden of proof is on the defense to show that they have a valid license.
The copyright holder doesn't have to build any case at all. The burden of
proof is on the reuser to show
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be whatever on steroids as a proprietary software model or
free-client-proprietary-server model. However, this model have the
same potential as email had a couple of decades ago.
Probably more comparable to the
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
The material has been released under the GFDL nothing wikimedia can do
can change that.
Sure.
Therefor it can be switched to CC-BY-SA-3.0.
{{citation needed}}...or should I say {{dubious}}?
Really Anthony even by your
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/30 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Once you've established a prima facie case of copyright infringement, the
burden of proof is on the defense to show that they have a valid license.
The copyright holder doesn't have to
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/5/29 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
Probably, some of you already saw that Google made something for which
I think that it will be the new form of the mainstream Internet
perception. You may read Slashdot
Hoi,
I have seen the presentation.. I have noticed that there were plenty of
moments where it was stated that this is an early version of the software
and that it needs more polishing. At this same presentation all the
developers that were in this room received an invite to start developing
27 matches
Mail list logo
