Registration is now open for the CC
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Global_Summit_2011 September 16-18 in
Warsaw.
Versioning the CC license suite will be a (the) major topic of the
summit, which will launch a long process of developing version 4.0.
All of the topics raised in the years before
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.comwrote:
While reading the FAQ of Creative Commons about the new Public Domain
Mark, I wondered what are the consequences for our projects. Will I
use PDM in future anyhow on Commons, for example?
Hopefully the main
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
I for one am very keen to see us use this system, if for no other reason
than it leverages the existing visibility of the Creative Commons
machine-readable licensing structure. The CC-Public Domain Mark is not
actually
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
2009/9/15 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Hay (Husky) hus...@gmail.com wrote:
with its 255 pages
this might be something that you would rather like to skim through
instead of fully read
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Benj. Mako Hill m...@atdot.cc wrote:
I'm happy to see that work is already being coordinated here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Outreach
As many people as possible should join in this effort and spread the
word.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
I see you've posted a blog post (
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13232) which suggests that
attribution by link was added in 2.5. You point to this a blog post by Mia
Garlick
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/6 Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org:
Yes.
Mike (not the CC counsel but just spoke to her)
And what was the exact wording of the question asked and what was the
line of reasoning?
The question was whether
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Sam Johnston s...@samj.net wrote:
CC are most likely to go along with what is sensible and are very
likely to listen to WMF when defining 'sensible'.
I have little doubt that's the case.
The license as it is
is pretty damn close to good enough (hence the
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
WMF used to really be a (choose a heavy-weight designation) pound
gorilla in the GFDL users pool.
When we transition to the Creative Commons universe, we will
never again regain that status, and a combative
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
There are over 100 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike Licenses.
[citation needed]
There are 74 due to versioning and jurisdiction ports, see
10 matches
Mail list logo
