The mailing list Textbook-l is now also on gmane
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
Use the newsserver "news.gmane.org"
The name of the newsgroup is
"gmane.org.wikimedia.textbook"
gmane is a mailing list to usenet interfase
For posting to the newsgroup you must be a list member. The first time you
post to the newsgroup you will receive an email for verification of your
email address, which is normal. If you work by means of the newsgroup you
probably no longer wants to receive the messages by email. To disable email
delivery go to "Edit Options".
( see http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l )
All the other Wikipedia mailing lists are also available on gmane.
Search for wikipedia on the list of newsgroups of news.gmane.org
--
Contact: walter AT wikipedia.be
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
http://www.wikipedia.be
I've been offline for a couple of days, and suffering from Wiki-withdrawal symptoms. ;(.
But, while I still have Wikipedia work to finish before making many contributions on Wikitext, I used the time to organize some thoughts.
I call your attention to one of these, related to hierarchy of texts and textbook general thoughts. You can comment on or see the first at <http://textbook.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textbook_libraries> and the second at <http://textbook.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textbook_planning>.
I'll post the second page pointed to on planning as soon as I finish reviewing contents of the mail list for related material. But, I would suggest that we soon move the discussion of development process questions to the Wiki itself rather than the mail list, then reserve the mail list to call attention to major changes or extended discussion.
Now, back to the Wiki :)
Regards, Lou Imholt (LouI on Wiki)
_______________________________________________
Eliminate pop-ups before they appear!
Visit www.PopSwatter.com now - It's FREE.
Erik wrote:
>You don't need to be admin to move pages,
>you just need to be logged in. Do you still want
>to be admin?
Yep - you are right. The fact that the Admin interface has "Delete this page |
Protect this page | Move this page" on the bottom threw me since "Move this
page" is not on the bottom on the standard user skin (failing to see that I
didn't even look at the sidebar).
But yeah - why not? At the very least I'll get the "Move this page" link where
I'm used to having it. ;-) I suggest Karl Wick also be an Admin (if he isn't
already) since he is the most active person right now and hence the person
most likely to notice vandalism before anybody else.
-- mav
It would be nice to be able to move pages - so to any developer out there; Can
I be an Admin for the textbook project?
How active does a wiki have to be to make 'move this page' a non-Admin option?
Just wondering - no real biggie.
-- Daniel Mayer (user:maveric149 internal ID #7)
Toby wrote:
>I apologise to everybody -- and especially to
>maveric149 -- for the above post.
Apology accepted and no hard feelings. :-)
WikiLove
--mav
Toby wrote:
>But the burden of proof lies with /you/,
>who insist on fixing everything in the
>GNU FDL to begin with.
? No. All Wikimedia projects are under the GNU FDL and yet you want to make an
exception here. I fail to see how the burden of proof is on me.
>No exchange can be hindered by a disjunctive
>license, because a GNU-only project can always
>borrow from a disjunctive one, and a disjunctive
>project can become GNU-only if it decides to
>borrow from a GNU-only project.
What do you mean exactly by a "disjunctive project"? And your use of the word
"project" is very confusing here - Wikibooks is the project and the
individual books are more akin to WikiProjects. In one sense you use the term
"disjunctive" to mean that each book decides what license to use (GFDL or
CCSA) and then you state that a book in in one license can barrow from a book
under a disjunctive license.
Don't you mean to say "dual license" for the latter example? That still
doesn't really make sense because a dual licensed work has a net flow of text
copied out instead of copied in for this simple reason; all text that goes
into a dual licensed work /has/ to be dual licensed. So even though a book
may be under a GFDL/CCSA dual license it /cannot/ accept GFDL only or CCSA
only text. Why would such a project choose that license combination in the
first place?
>If there were no Wikipedia or any source like it,
>would you still want to start Wikipedia on the GNU
>FDL alone?
That's rather hypothetical but without thinking it through too much I would
have chosen an in-house license like Jimbo suggests (allowing our work to be
licensed under one of several of a short list of outside licenses). But that
would only solve the issue about our text being re-used elsewhere.
Once something gets placed under one of those licenses and mixed with other
text that is solely under that license, then we are faced with the very odd
situation where we cannot use the resulting work (unless the owner of the
derivative work agrees to license their GFDL only part of their work, for
example, under our in house license).
OK, I'm getting a headache - this is all very complicated and the more I think
about it the more I'm convinced that since that we should not change things -
we are stuck with the GNU FDL and should work with the big boys on getting
them to play nicely together.
>So why do you want to saddle my project with the
>GNU licence, when next year I may find a CC SA
>textbook to join forces with?
Vaporware. Come back when you actually find a textbook you want to use that is
under a GFDL incompatible license and then we can consider the situation.
And you could always ask the copyright holder about a change in license.
We have already been successful in getting many people to re-license external
/proprietary/ text under the GFDL. So I wouldn't be surprised at all if a
person with a CCSA book would agree to license their work to us under the GNU
FDL. Furthermore we have already uncovered a great many GFDL books already on
the Internet. Again - where are these other resources?
What you propose to do is add a great deal of needless complexity to solve a
problem that does not exist. If and when we come across a huge CCSA (or
similar) resource then we can think about having a disjoint system (only our
efforts to ask the copyright holders about giving us a GFDL license of their
work fail). But for now all this is just a needless distraction.
--- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Toby wrote:
>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
>[nonsense]
>
>Well, mav has pretty obviously not read a single
>word that I've written, so what's the point in replying?
>
>-- Toby
Offlist reply.
--mav
Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
>...
>I also would like to point out the recent Debian
>decision to consider the GFDL as a non-free license.
>This has been debated for months on debian-legal. You
>can read the archives here:
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/
Side note: They only consider GFDLd text to be
"non-free" when "Invariant Sections", "Cover Texts",
"Acknowledgements", and/or "Dedications" (all GFDL
options) are used. We don't use any of those so our
text is free content.
:>Lessig:.. The one thing the FDL has failed to do, as
:>has the GPL, is to enable a semantic web-like
:>architecture that encourages machine-readable
:>expressions of freedoms. That=A2s the core
:>commitment of the Creative Commons.
Heh? What is a "machine-readable expression of
freedom" and why is that an important thing to have? I
guess I'll have to do some more reading....
>I think it would be a confusing thing to create a
>licensing difference between the Wikipedia
>Encyclopedia and the Wikimedia Textbook Project
>now.
Amen to that!
>The discussion between FSF and Creative Commons and
>some other license authors can, and probably will, be
>time consuming. I don't think the Textbook Project
>needs to wait for a solution in order to advance.
Yep - I completely agree.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
From: Jimmy Wales
>
> If we were starting wikipedia from scratch today, I would prefer to
> create a wikipedia license that says "You can redistribute this
> content under GNU FDL, CC-SA, or additional free licenses that may be
> specified from time to time on this page."
>
> But isn't it too late for that?
Why not add a "from <chose your date> the license is changed to...",
and ask all contributers to sign on a page if they retroactively agree,
and theoretically one could filter out all articles not covered and rewrite those is necessary.
Schewek
--
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze
Schewek wrote:
>Why not add a "from <chose your date>
>the license is changed to...", and ask all
>contributers to sign on a page if they
>retroactively agree, and theoretically one
>could filter out all articles not covered and
>rewrite those is necessary.
You mentioned articles and not modules so I assume you are talking about
Wikipedia. In short: that's impossible on practical grounds. There have
probably been more than 20,000 people who have edited Wikipedia and most of
them were either anonymous or didn't leave an email address behind that is
still active.
Depending on the change many people may also opt not to agree to the change -
I would probably be one of those just on the principal that we shouldn't
change things like our license arbitrarily (it has worked great so far; so
why rock the boat?).
That is still possible for the textbook project though - however most of the
content being placed there so far is GFDLd textbooks that were created
elsewhere and copied Wikipedia text.
We can discuss the possibility of changing license terms when somebody finds
an impressive non-FDLd free text resource whose copyright owner declines our
nicely-worded request to grant us a GFDL license of their work.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)