I have created a new template for Wikipedians to display on their user pages to display they are content with the GFDL and don't feel the need to jump on the multi-licensing bandwagon:
You can get to it by typing {{NoMultiLicense}}.
You can see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NoMultiLicense
--Ashdurbat
Can you fix the font so it's not so tiny? Can you fix the font so you don't fix the font size?
here I go top-posting again...
--- Trevor Caira trevor.caira@gmail.com wrote:
I have created a new template for Wikipedians to display on their user pages to display they are content with the GFDL and don't feel the need to jump on the multi-licensing bandwagon:
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I have to say, I'm sorry to see this template's existence. The failure of various free licenses to "talk" to one another is rapidly becoming one of the biggest barriers to the creation of free content, and with the rapid ascent of Creative Commons, frankly, Wikipedia is looking a little crusty in its model. It's very hard to utilize bits of Wikipedia in creative works, because the GFDL kinda sucks for that. I'd have a tough time applying the GFDL to a visual work. (How would I link back?)
Until a better solution comes along (I'm hoping very much that the new version of the GFDL that they're working on will have some provision about other free licenses) multi-licensing seems to me a necessary evil. In particular, the no sign over the CC image feels in poor taste to me.
-Snowspinner
On Dec 5, 2004, at 6:42 PM, Trevor Caira wrote:
I have created a new template for Wikipedians to display on their user pages to display they are content with the GFDL and don't feel the need to jump on the multi-licensing bandwagon:
You can get to it by typing {{NoMultiLicense}}.
You can see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NoMultiLicense
--Ashdurbat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I didn't know that there was anyone who was actively proposing the gfdl as a good thing rather than just something with such inertia that it was difficult to change. Mark
--- Trevor Caira trevor.caira@gmail.com wrote:
I have created a new template for Wikipedians to display on their user pages to display they are content with the GFDL and don't feel the need to jump on the multi-licensing bandwagon:
You can get to it by typing {{NoMultiLicense}}.
You can see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NoMultiLicense
--Ashdurbat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
In response, I've finally decided to multilicense my contributions under a Creative Commons license. I've been meaning to for some time, but I've just been too lazy to really consider it. I've finally done so. Thanks for the impetus. :-)
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Trevor Caira wrote:
I have created a new template for Wikipedians to display on their user pages to display they are content with the GFDL and don't feel the need to jump on the multi-licensing bandwagon:
You can get to it by typing {{NoMultiLicense}}.
You can see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NoMultiLicense
--Ashdurbat
On Dec 7, 2004, at 8:15 AM, John Lee wrote:
In response, I've finally decided to multilicense my contributions under a Creative Commons license. I've been meaning to for some time, but I've just been too lazy to really consider it. I've finally done so. Thanks for the impetus. :-)
Same here :-) Just for clarification: does adding a dual-licensing template to my user page automatically cover all the edits I've already made, or do I need to explicitly state that?
Benjamin Esham wrote:
Same here :-) Just for clarification: does adding a dual-licensing template to my user page automatically cover all the edits I've already made, or do I need to explicitly state that?
Well, the template says that you agree to multi-license your text contributions "unless otherwise stated", so I'd assume so. I'm not a lawyer though.
On this dual-licensing issue, would there be any interest in a user preference allowing you to state what licenses you release your work under? That would at least be the first step in getting dual licensing really meaningful, because then article edits could be identified with a license.
Shane.