-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
As noted at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ and others, version 2.5 of the Creative Commons licenses are now recommended for all new works.
In the spirit of being bold, I have created [[Template:cc-by-2.5]] and [[Template:cc-by-sa-2.5]].
- -- Alphax OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
Shouldn't we have multi-licencensing templates for that as well?
--Mgm
On 6/9/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
As noted at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ and others, version 2.5 of the Creative Commons licenses are now recommended for all new works.
In the spirit of being bold, I have created [[Template:cc-by-2.5]] and [[Template:cc-by-sa-2.5]].
Alphax OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCqIG//RxM5Ph0xhMRAmf2AJ9mkctAurY5EOqbNFidL2jg6QzQ6gCgq8p8 vyniXVJBK9v33gREGSAHfeM= =fM3Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
By the way, I fail to see any difference between 2.0 and 2.5 Can some more law-savvy people explain the difference. I'm almost sure it's in the legal version of the license.
--Mgm
On 6/10/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Shouldn't we have multi-licencensing templates for that as well?
--Mgm
On 6/9/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
As noted at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ and others, version 2.5 of the Creative Commons licenses are now recommended for all new works.
In the spirit of being bold, I have created [[Template:cc-by-2.5]] and [[Template:cc-by-sa-2.5]].
Alphax OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCqIG//RxM5Ph0xhMRAmf2AJ9mkctAurY5EOqbNFidL2jg6QzQ6gCgq8p8 vyniXVJBK9v33gREGSAHfeM= =fM3Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/06/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, I fail to see any difference between 2.0 and 2.5 Can some more law-savvy people explain the difference. I'm almost sure it's in the legal version of the license.
I find the creativecommons site very hard to find such information on, although I'm sure it's there. But with a bit of Googling I turned up the *beginning* of the discussion about v2.5... http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-May/002313.html ...and it "Drawing to a Close"... http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457 ...but no announcement that it has "become official", although it does seem to have.
Basically, it seems to be to do with electing who gets attribution - to allow collective and nominated attribution in some way. Don't ask me how, or how this relates to the cc-wiki proposal, because I've only skimmed the stuff, but the links above seem to basically explain it if you have the patience to work it out.
This is about a week late, but I figured I would take a look today and see what the differences are by comparing the two side by side.
It seems to clarify some of the attribution information, especially the case of requesting someone to *remove* attribution (basically, if I create work X licensed under CC, and people I don't want to be associated with use it to create work Y, I cannot demand that they stop doing it, if they are using the license correctly, but I *can* request they take my name off it). This was already in 2.0 but they seem to have tried to strengthen this a bit, if I'm interpretting this correctly (but I'm no lawyer).
It also looks like you can have a Licensor Designate ("e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal") be in charge of the licensing as well, instead of just the Original Author.
Besides these two changes to section 4(a) and 4(b) there doesn't seem to be anything else different.
FF
On 6/10/05, Rowan Collins rowan.collins@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/06/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, I fail to see any difference between 2.0 and 2.5 Can some more law-savvy people explain the difference. I'm almost sure it's in the legal version of the license.
I find the creativecommons site very hard to find such information on, although I'm sure it's there. But with a bit of Googling I turned up the *beginning* of the discussion about v2.5... http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-May/002313.html ...and it "Drawing to a Close"... http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457 ...but no announcement that it has "become official", although it does seem to have.
Basically, it seems to be to do with electing who gets attribution - to allow collective and nominated attribution in some way. Don't ask me how, or how this relates to the cc-wiki proposal, because I've only skimmed the stuff, but the links above seem to basically explain it if you have the patience to work it out.
-- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l