Sanger has made his first post to the Citizendium list:
https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2006-September/000000.html
Select quotes and a bit of commentary:
"I have a suggestion from someone very high up in the Creative Commons organization that we should dual-license (CC and GFDL), which I simply hadn't thought of. I'm inclined to think it's a good idea."
I'd like to know how that would be compatible with working from Wikipedia content.
"Speaking of naysayers, sure there have been a few on the blogosphere, but what was especially striking to me is that Wikimedia's lawyer and chief engineer both have said nothing but encouraging things to us. How wonderfully refreshing of them! And huge numbers of people on Slashdot and elsewhere have come out saying that this is a good idea, and that we have every right to do it."
Well, of course! That's what the "free content" bit is for, and I'm interested in seeing how well this one works. I'd actually like to see more projects coming from people who want to differ on some fundamental point; Wikinfo is perhaps the best go at this so far.
"Personally, "Citizendium" rolls right off my tongue."
OK, that part I find hard to believe. :-)
-Kat
Kat,
This guy is crazier than I am (hard to believe). He is attempting to trade on Wikimedia's goodwill to create publicity. This could get very down and dirty. Best thing is to restrict discussions to the chat rooms to avoid leaving trails of bread crumbs for him to read on this list. That's his intent, to create controversy and generate publicity. Be assured, he may start airing dirty laundry in public if momentun is not forthcoming.
I would give some humble advice to deprive him of the forum to do so (unless he wants to visit the chat room).
:-)
Jeff
Kat Walsh wrote:
Sanger has made his first post to the Citizendium list:
https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2006-September/000000.html
Select quotes and a bit of commentary:
"I have a suggestion from someone very high up in the Creative Commons organization that we should dual-license (CC and GFDL), which I simply hadn't thought of. I'm inclined to think it's a good idea."
I'd like to know how that would be compatible with working from Wikipedia content.
"Speaking of naysayers, sure there have been a few on the blogosphere, but what was especially striking to me is that Wikimedia's lawyer and chief engineer both have said nothing but encouraging things to us. How wonderfully refreshing of them! And huge numbers of people on Slashdot and elsewhere have come out saying that this is a good idea, and that we have every right to do it."
Well, of course! That's what the "free content" bit is for, and I'm interested in seeing how well this one works. I'd actually like to see more projects coming from people who want to differ on some fundamental point; Wikinfo is perhaps the best go at this so far.
"Personally, "Citizendium" rolls right off my tongue."
OK, that part I find hard to believe. :-)
-Kat
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Brion,
Hope things are going well, Please delete my last post on this thread from the archives if possible. Kat and I have taken the discussions off list. I was attempting to just respond to Kat OFFLIST and for some reason this posting ended up on the list.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/010065.html
Love Ya,
Thanks
Jeff
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 12:47:42AM -0600, Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Brion,
Hope things are going well, Please delete my last post on this thread from the archives if possible. Kat and I have taken the discussions off list. I was attempting to just respond to Kat OFFLIST and for some reason this posting ended up on the list.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/010065.html
While the post might be removable from the archives, it's still in many people's mailboxes. You might want to be more careful posting to a public list in future.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On 9/18/06, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 12:47:42AM -0600, Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Brion,
Hope things are going well, Please delete my last post on this thread from the archives if possible. Kat and I have taken the discussions off list. I was attempting to just respond to Kat OFFLIST and for some reason this posting ended up on the list.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/010065.html
While the post might be removable from the archives, it's still in many people's mailboxes. You might want to be more careful posting to a public list in future.
Not only that, it might also be in mail archives (e.g. Gmane), and search engine caches (Google)... Michael
sincerely, Kim Bruning
-- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Michael Bimmler wrote:
On 9/18/06, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 12:47:42AM -0600, Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Brion,
Hope things are going well, Please delete my last post on this thread from the archives if possible. Kat and I have taken the discussions off list. I was attempting to just respond to Kat OFFLIST and for some reason this posting ended up on the list.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/010065.html
While the post might be removable from the archives, it's still in many people's mailboxes. You might want to be more careful posting to a public list in future.
Not only that, it might also be in mail archives (e.g. Gmane), and search engine caches (Google)... Michael
sincerely, Kim Bruning
-- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'll be more careful with the reply button in the future.
Jeff
On 9/18/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
"I have a suggestion from someone very high up in the Creative Commons organization that we should dual-license (CC and GFDL), which I simply hadn't thought of. I'm inclined to think it's a good idea."
I'd like to know how that would be compatible with working from Wikipedia content.
You lisence everything under the GFDL and any chnages under CC as well. This is completely useless because you have to follow the GFDL anyway but thats life.
You lisence everything under the GFDL and any chnages under CC as well. This is completely useless because you have to follow the GFDL anyway but thats life.
If a text is completely licensed under the GFDL and the CC (every author has agreed to this dual-license), you have the right to copy it under just one license. A soft GFDL to CC transistion of Wikipedia could be achieved by a dual-license strategy.
Mathias
On 18/09/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
You lisence everything under the GFDL and any chnages under CC as well. This is completely useless because you have to follow the GFDL anyway but thats life.
If a text is completely licensed under the GFDL and the CC (every author has agreed to this dual-license), you have the right to copy it under just one license. A soft GFDL to CC transistion of Wikipedia could be achieved by a dual-license strategy.
Yeah. Quite a few Wikipedia editors dual-licence their stuff anyway.
- d.
On 9/18/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
You lisence everything under the GFDL and any chnages under CC as well. This is completely useless because you have to follow the GFDL anyway but thats life.
If a text is completely licensed under the GFDL and the CC (every author has agreed to this dual-license), you have the right to copy it under just one license. A soft GFDL to CC transistion of Wikipedia could be achieved by a dual-license strategy.
Mathias
It's been tried. A combination of hold outs and all those one off contributers make it unlikely to be effected.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org