Anthony writes:
I can believe that you'd focus on such drivel rather than respond to the actual issues raised.
I try to focus *both* on your drivel *and* on the issues you raise. I figure you wouldn't be so extreme in what you post if you didn't want me to focus on it too. Am I mistaken?
Grow up, Mike.
Too late. At my advanced age, I take my fun where I can find it.
I think you and I both know that your whole business of saying there are "over 100" versions of CC-BY-SA was an attempt to try to create ambiguity and anxiety when there isn't really any. The computer industry used to refer to this as FUD -- the spreading of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. My reaction to FUD is normally to have fun with the FUD-spreaders.
--Mike
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think you and I both know that your whole business of saying there are "over 100" versions of CC-BY-SA was an attempt to try to create ambiguity and anxiety when there isn't really any.
No, I could have accomplished quite the same point by saying that there are "over 50" versions, which is clearly true (I'm actually still not convinced that "over 100" isn't correct - I counted 92 just between 2.5 and 3.0, but I may have double-counted, there doesn't seem to be a clear list of them all).
My point still stands. There are many versions of CC-BY-SA 3.0. The proposal should be specific as to which one(s) it is talking about. Adding the words "any version of" or "all versions of" or "the Unported version of" or "the US version of" would make this clear.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org