On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder
>> wrote:
>>> Foundation is not a legal term
>>
>> "Private foundation" is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted
>> with "public charity".
>>
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usco
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder
> wrote:
>> Foundation is not a legal term
>
> "Private foundation" is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted
> with "public charity".
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_0509000-.html
> http://www.irs.gov/cha
¯¥Í´Ó&j)\¢`ÚµåwnÀ¦½´×]5çn{ûM4Ð*'µéíO*^µìmþZw!j» ___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Foundation is not a legal term
"Private foundation" is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted
with "public charity".
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_0509000-.html
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitab
As of a Chinese Wikipedian, I can give you details:
- Baidu Copy articles from Chinese, English and Japanese Wikipedia
- Baidu copy 1680 articles in total of these three Wikipedia
- Baidu copy 1636 articles from Chinese Wikipedia, including 74 FA, 44 GA, 126
DYK and 1397 normal articles, while 10
Fred Bauder, 26/04/2011 21:08:
>> MZMcBride, 26/04/2011 21:22:
>>> From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word
>>> "foundation"
>>> versus the use of the word "charity":
>>
>> Something to consider is that the WMF has a global audience. In Italian,
>> for instance, a translation fo
> MZMcBride, 26/04/2011 21:22:
>> From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word
>> "foundation"
>> versus the use of the word "charity":
>
> Something to consider is that the WMF has a global audience. In Italian,
> for instance, a translation for "charity" doesn't even exist: all
> f
>>From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation"
> versus the use of the word "charity":
>
>> Some charities, however, have the word "Foundation" in their official
>> names. Examples of these are the Yele Haiti Foundation, the New York
>> Foundation for the Arts, the Willi
MZMcBride, 26/04/2011 21:22:
> From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation"
> versus the use of the word "charity":
Something to consider is that the WMF has a global audience. In Italian,
for instance, a translation for "charity" doesn't even exist: all
foundations a
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:22 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation"
> versus the use of the word "charity":
>
Is the WMF only a charitable organization?
I think WMF is much more than that.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foundation
http:
On 26 April 2011 20:22, MZMcBride wrote:
> It appears that nobody appears to actually follow this rule (including the
> "New York Times"), but I find the nuance interesting. I imagine one would
> perform better than the other during fundraising; perhaps there's hard data
> on that.
This varies
>From a "New York Times" blog post about the use of the word "foundation"
versus the use of the word "charity":
> Some charities, however, have the word "Foundation" in their official
> names. Examples of these are the Yele Haiti Foundation, the New York
> Foundation for the Arts, the William J. C
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Steven Walling wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Just a quick heads up that Sue will be having one of her regular IRC office
> hours in #wikimedia-office this Thursday, April 28th at 17:00 UTC.
> Instructions about how to join etc. are on Meta.[1]
>
> As for topics, we we
Hi everyone,
Just a quick heads up that Sue will be having one of her regular IRC office
hours in #wikimedia-office this Thursday, April 28th at 17:00 UTC.
Instructions about how to join etc. are on Meta.[1]
As for topics, we were thinking that it might be nice to talk about our
continuing resear
In a message dated 4/26/2011 4:42:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
waihor...@yahoo.com.hk writes:
> Baidu do not translate anything copy from English Wikipedia or Japanese
> Wikipedia, but just keep the full content without attribution and changing
>
> anything. There are totally about 50 article
In a message dated 4/26/2011 12:08:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
smole...@eunet.rs writes:
> Translation is not "sweat of the brow". Copyright law of Germany, for
> example, explicitly states that translations are copyrighted:
> http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__3.html . Copyright law of Serbi
Baidu do not translate anything copy from English Wikipedia or Japanese
Wikipedia, but just keep the full content without attribution and changing
anything. There are totally about 50 articles copy from Eng & Japanese WP.
HW
寄件人﹕ "wjhon...@aol.com"
收件人﹕ foundati
On 04/26/2011 07:58 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 26 April 2011 03:06, wrote:
>> I always thought that translations were considered "wholely derivative",
>> that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating.
>
> I would expect that to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For
> examp
>
> --
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:46:41 -0700
> From: Ray Saintonge
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Message-ID: <4db66a51.8090...@telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plai
Hello,
2011/4/26 MZMcBride :
> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> It's my understanding that "sweat of the brown" does not create a
>> copyright at all. That was the entire argument behind the claim that
>> phonebooks had no copyright protection. Similarly pure indexes have no
>> copyright protection sinc
20 matches
Mail list logo
