2009/2/1 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a
book first
Thomas Dalton wrote:
The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a
book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license was
2009/1/30 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
before the new license was announced. Since this was
As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. IUP
states that this should not occur.
- Chris
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com:
Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1e29885.png
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie)
newsmar...@googlemail.com wrote:
i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of an
image where the watermark can be
thanks
seems to me that they are on images which they own copyright on, so maybe
its just that the files theyve used were from an online version or
something?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either.
- Chris
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1e29885.png
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM,
well if they/john bought the image rights then they would own it, meaning
that the credit is sufficient as it is.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Chris Down
neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.comwrote:
That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either.
- Chris
On Thu, Jan 29,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chris Down
neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com wrote:
That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either.
- Chris
The original is however referenced in the image caption on the page
where it is used:
Okay, I'll move it to the image description page soon if someone hasn't done
it already.
- Chris
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chris Down
neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com wrote:
That page doesn't attribute the creator
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com:
Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.
We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means
Wikibooks wouldn't handle it
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/1/28 effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com:
Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.
Why
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/1/28 geni:
Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
license under GFDL 1.2
Hi all,
The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but shouldn't this be on
Wikibooks? Part of the
Hoi,
Let us fist congratulate O'Reilley and John Broughton with their decision to
make their work available to us. This is in my opinion excellent news. The
question where this manual should be is not that straight forward. Wikipedia
NEEDS better help text and this truly puts all this information
First, we think it's wonderful that O'Reilly has done this; TMM is a
fantastic book and a great introduction for newbies. (We have been
giving copies away as gifts for a while.) I believe Frank is planning
to blog about this in more detail soon. Please do show them some love
for doing this; it's
2009/1/28 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
Hi all,
The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just
uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual
My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:14 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
Unless it was relicensed. And it would surprise me if they genuinely
objected to such relicensing...
--
Sam
PGP public key:
2009/1/28 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
First, we think it's wonderful that O'Reilly has done this; TMM is a
fantastic book and a great introduction for newbies. (We have been
giving copies away as gifts for a while.)
Also, as the O'Reilly press release notes, it's John who took the
2009/1/28 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
license under GFDL 1.2 or later...
Hoi,
You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
can relicense it to anything he likes.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/28 geni geni...@gmail.com
2009/1/28 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
Hi all,
The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm obviously in favor of having more books at Wikibooks, but then
again it does make some sense to keep the documentation close to the
website it documents. If the book is GFDL, couldn't we just copy/fork
it to
The resulting work will be welcome at Wikibooks. But I'm unclear
why you can't have someone getting paid to write content on a
Wikimedia wiki? One of our bureaucrats Whiteknight is currently
doing this as part of his employment for the Perl Foundation:
Hi Gerard,
pls remain polite and dont call names.
teun
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
can relicense it to anything he likes.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/28
2009/1/28 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is this a special
case?
The CC switch, when and if it happens, will be
2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Hoi,
You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
can relicense it to anything he likes.
Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I
can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Hoi,
You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
can relicense it to anything he likes.
Of course he can, but unless he
2009/1/28 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Hoi,
You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
can relicense it to anything he likes.
Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.
Why not just copy it and see where it flourishes best?
Best regards,
Lodewijk
2009/1/28 effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com:
Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.
Why not just copy it and see
I hate to say it, but it would probably flourish best on Wikipedia,
since there are more knowledgable wikipedians on that site with a
vested interest to make the book better. The question is more one of
appropriateness, does Wikipedia want to host books, even books about
Wikipedia? Wikibooks has
31 matches
Mail list logo
