[Foundation-l] Attribution survey and licensing next steps
Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu
Sun Mar 8 04:03:29 UTC 2009
Just to be clear, my argument does not allow for 6. Just because an
alternate compromise is possible does not imply that my argument
allows for such a compromise. As another person said, its effectively
just the first.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Brian <Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu> wrote:
>> 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 at the re-user's option seems like a good compromise.
> Compromise? Between what two sides would that be a compromise?
> Might as well make it 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 at the re-user's option. Now
> there's a compromise, eh? LOL.
> Oh oh, here's a compromise. 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 at the author's option. Or,
> how about 1, 2, 3, 4, *and* 5. LOL.
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:34 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This [1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 at the re-user's option] is exactly the same as 1.
> I'd say it's much worse than 1. It's certainly not *exactly* the same.
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l