License change/Decision - Revision history

Millosh: Protected "License change/Decision" ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))

2009-07-27T10:07:40Z

Protected "License change/Decision" ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))

Millosh: Reverted edits by 59.163.170.113 (Talk) to last version by Rev 22

2009-07-27T10:06:59Z

Reverted edits by 59.163.170.113 (Talk) to last version by Rev 22

59.163.170.113: hmm.. nice :)

2009-07-25T10:29:11Z

hmm.. nice :)

Rev 22: Reverted edits by 61.148.115.250 (Talk) to last version by Rev 22

2009-07-25T10:19:30Z

Reverted edits by 61.148.115.250 (Talk) to last version by Rev 22

61.148.115.250: hmm.. nice )

2009-07-24T06:12:51Z

hmm.. nice )

Rev 22: Reverted edits by 208.98.17.162 (Talk) to last version by Rev 22

2009-07-19T09:26:16Z

Reverted edits by 208.98.17.162 (Talk) to last version by Rev 22

208.98.17.162: emm. really like it :)

2009-07-19T02:06:25Z

emm. really like it :)

Rev 22: Reverted edits by 194.8.75.214 (Talk) to last version by Millosh

2009-07-18T02:32:50Z

Reverted edits by 194.8.75.214 (Talk) to last version by Millosh

194.8.75.214: Billiards pool

2009-07-15T21:49:49Z

Billiards pool

Millosh: Reverted edits by 70.137.24.180 (Talk) to last version by Millosh

2009-06-29T00:58:47Z

Reverted edits by 70.137.24.180 (Talk) to last version by Millosh

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 * [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Timeline Timeline] of the Wikimedia transition.
-I should notify you about it.
+== Discussion ==
 == Poll ==

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 * [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Timeline Timeline] of the Wikimedia transition.
-== Discussion ==
+I should notify you about it.
-About import into Anarchopedia: is it so big problem? Will anyone worry if Anarchopedia breaks licensing? Even if yes, I don't think that import articles is so important for Anarchopedia. I think it's better to write one's own small anarchistic article than copy a big and substantially useless one.
-−
-About export from Anarchopedia. This is not problem of Anarchopedia, this is problem of Wikipedia (and others). But! It will be problem only if Anarchopedia is against export. As mentioned above, 'license of Anarchopedia for interfering with statist and capitalist entities is GFDL (otherwise, we don't care about it)'. So, we are not against that out articles will be copyed. '''There is no problem of export at all!'''
-−
-[[User:Caesarion|Caesarion]] 16:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
-−
-: Importing articles is not an issue because Wikipedia will have a form of dual licensing, which means that only articles with explicitly CC-BY-SA-only contributions won't be able to be imported. The number of such articles will raise, but I don't think that it will be a serious issue in the future. --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 01:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
-: More important issue is related to spreading our work. The fact is that Wikipedia is the most important online knowledge resource. While Wikipedia per se is not a statist nor capitalist entity, Wikipedia follows strictly statist and capitalist rules. If we don't allow them explicitly to use our content, they won't use it. We may treat it as a problem which is not our, in the sense of Anarchopedian community, but I think that it is a problem in the sense of spreading our ideas. --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 01:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
-−
-According to Jimmy Wales, the reasons for Wikimedia to move from the GFDL to the CC-BY-SA license are:
-−
-"The GFDL was originally formulated to address a specific set of problems, including the possibility that some companies might use non-free documentation as a way of encumbering otherwise free software. The design decisions that went into development of a documentation license don't always address the problems that come up with massive multi-user collaboration projects like Wikipedia, and they may in fact create new problems that make free content less easy to use.
-−
-This is a large part of the reason why Creative Commons has designed a specific generic copyleft license for works which are not software, the CC-BY-SA license. The Creative Commons licenses have seen rapid adoption on the web, with more than 130 million works estimated to be licensed under one of them." --[[User:Benjamin|Benjamin]] 21:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 == Poll ==

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 * [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Timeline Timeline] of the Wikimedia transition.
-hh.. nice ))
+== Discussion ==
 == Poll ==

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 * [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Timeline Timeline] of the Wikimedia transition.
-== Discussion ==
+hh.. nice ))
-About import into Anarchopedia: is it so big problem? Will anyone worry if Anarchopedia breaks licensing? Even if yes, I don't think that import articles is so important for Anarchopedia. I think it's better to write one's own small anarchistic article than copy a big and substantially useless one.
-−
-About export from Anarchopedia. This is not problem of Anarchopedia, this is problem of Wikipedia (and others). But! It will be problem only if Anarchopedia is against export. As mentioned above, 'license of Anarchopedia for interfering with statist and capitalist entities is GFDL (otherwise, we don't care about it)'. So, we are not against that out articles will be copyed. '''There is no problem of export at all!'''
-−
-[[User:Caesarion|Caesarion]] 16:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
-−
-: Importing articles is not an issue because Wikipedia will have a form of dual licensing, which means that only articles with explicitly CC-BY-SA-only contributions won't be able to be imported. The number of such articles will raise, but I don't think that it will be a serious issue in the future. --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 01:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
-: More important issue is related to spreading our work. The fact is that Wikipedia is the most important online knowledge resource. While Wikipedia per se is not a statist nor capitalist entity, Wikipedia follows strictly statist and capitalist rules. If we don't allow them explicitly to use our content, they won't use it. We may treat it as a problem which is not our, in the sense of Anarchopedian community, but I think that it is a problem in the sense of spreading our ideas. --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 01:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
-−
-According to Jimmy Wales, the reasons for Wikimedia to move from the GFDL to the CC-BY-SA license are:
-−
-"The GFDL was originally formulated to address a specific set of problems, including the possibility that some companies might use non-free documentation as a way of encumbering otherwise free software. The design decisions that went into development of a documentation license don't always address the problems that come up with massive multi-user collaboration projects like Wikipedia, and they may in fact create new problems that make free content less easy to use.
-−
-This is a large part of the reason why Creative Commons has designed a specific generic copyleft license for works which are not software, the CC-BY-SA license. The Creative Commons licenses have seen rapid adoption on the web, with more than 130 million works estimated to be licensed under one of them." --[[User:Benjamin|Benjamin]] 21:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 == Poll ==

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 * [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Timeline Timeline] of the Wikimedia transition.
-nice! i'm gonna make my own blog
+== Discussion ==
 == Poll ==

← Older revision	Revision as of 10:07, 27 July 2009
(No difference)