Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re-licensing Wikimedia logos on Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0

A nice move indeed, but I am wondering why you not chose the cc-by 4.0? Rupert On Oct 27, 2014 6:52 PM, "Yana Welinder" wrote: > Hi folks, > > I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos on > Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0: > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re-licensing Wikimedia logos on Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0

Wonderful news! Great! On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:25 PM, rupert THURNER wrote: > A nice move indeed, but I am wondering why you not chose the cc-by 4.0? > > Rupert > On Oct 27, 2014 6:52 PM, "Yana Welinder" wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re-licensing Wikimedia logos on Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0

This indeed a great news! Thanks to WMF, especially the legal team. Cheers Ali Haidar Khan FDC Member Treasurer, Wikimedia Bangladesh On Oct 27, 2014 11:52 PM, "Yana Welinder" wrote: > Hi folks, > > I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos on > Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] new Math options: phrasing the preferences

Hi Peter, On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Peter Krautzberger wrote: >> While I can understand that the SVG images were orginally optimized of >> inline use, I do not see any principal reason why inline SVG's are >> better. > > a) all rendering issues have been due to SVGs not being linine That's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re-licensing Wikimedia logos on Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0

Really cool, great work. Thank you very much. Greetings Ting Am 10/27/2014 um 06:51 PM schrieb Yana Welinder: Hi folks, I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos on Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/ I would

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re-licensing Wikimedia logos on Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0

Practical question: The template: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark contains a line: (Consider using {{Copyright by Wikimedia }} instead) Should that line be removed from the Wikimedia trademark templ

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re-licensing Wikimedia logos on Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0

Good point. That line can now be deleted from the trademark template. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki wrote: > Practical question: > The template: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikimedia_trademark > contains a line: (Consider using {{Copyright by Wikimedia >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

Minutes and slides from Thursday's quarterly review meeting of the Foundation's Multimedia team are now available at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Multimedia/October_2014 . On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > Hi folks, > >

[Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

Hi yana, would you be so kind to explain why wmf did not opt for the newest commons license, cc-by-sa 4.0? Rupert On Oct 28, 2014 9:06 PM, "Yana Welinder" wrote: Good point. That line can now be deleted from the trademark template. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki wrote: > Pract

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re-licensing Wikimedia logos on Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0

Done! Thanks! Romaine 2014-10-28 21:05 GMT+01:00 Yana Welinder : > Good point. That line can now be deleted from the trademark template. > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Romaine Wiki > wrote: > > > Practical question: > > The template: > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikime

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cc-by-sa 4.0, Wikimedia logos

Hi, Rupert- I think the movement as a whole should try to move consistently to 4.0 at roughly the same time. It is confusing to re-users to have to juggle different terms for different pieces of Wikimedia content.[1] So Foundation content will generally remain 3.0 until we make 4.0 the default lic

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re-licensing Wikimedia logos on Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0

Yay! I'm pretty sure there is a Jimbo quote somewhere about how the Wikimedia logos would never ever be made free, and for once I am glad that he was wrong. Or maybe it was Mike Godwin. Doesn't really matter who said it, except to say that this seems like a remarkable turn around compared to the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re-licensing Wikimedia logos on Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0

Yana Welinder wrote: >I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos on >Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0: >https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/ Hi. I found this blog post pretty confusing. It is not obvious to me which logos we're talking about specif

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia Is Emerging as Trusted Internet Source for Information on Ebola"

The same article was just forwarded to me by a US-based academic who's been very sceptical of Wikipedia. Felt a tinge of pride. Sent her back the Open Medicine peer-reviewed Wikipedia article on dengue fever, posted to this list earlier. Congratulations, Bishakha On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re-licensing Wikimedia logos on Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:51:47 -0700 Yana Welinder wrote: > Hi folks, > > I'm happy to announce that we are re-licensing the Wikimedia logos on > Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0: > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/ > G

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re-licensing Wikimedia logos on Commons to CC BY-SA 3.0

The most simple answer is: this is the nature of Wikimedia. Same as: Wikidata was requested in 2005, in use since 2012. And so many things you can name which took multiple years. But I think this is the nature of Wikimedia. Not in rush to compete with other parties for the first place, not in the