2009/2/18 Michael Snow <[email protected]>: > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> 2009/2/18 Michael Snow <[email protected]>: >> >>> That's why we made it a point to include some attribution standards in >>> the proposal, so that we don't vote on this in a vacuum. >>> >> I don't believe I've seen a formal proposal yet - did I miss it? >> > There's the licensing update page on Meta, currently marked as a draft. > I'm not sure what you were looking for, but feel free to approach that > as the proposal, it's what we've been discussing all along, I believe. > We'll probably take off the "draft" status at some point, but there are > tradeoffs between formality and retaining the ability to address and > incorporate feedback before we vote.
Oh, yes, there is that draft. Obviously, the point at which you take off the "draft" needs to be before the vote - which needs to be sooner rather than later if we're going to have a definite result in time (the Foundation is registered in Florida, after all! ;)). Incidentally, what contact have you had with CC about how they interpret the license? Particularly regarding the "attribution by reference" issue. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
