|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| These come here once decided at [[WikiIndex:Proposals]]. | | These come here once decided at [[WikiIndex:Proposals]]. |
|
| |
|
| == Proposal 18-Feb-2006: License ==
| |
|
| |
|
| I propose we drop the NC from the Creative Commons license. [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 15:48, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| : Can we discuss, I'm not sure I understand the rationale for this --[[Raymond King]] | <small>[[User talk:Rathbone|talk]]</small> 18:38, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| Yes, the NC means no one can use it on a site with adwords, nor can they publish in their print mag that they charge money for. Why would we want to limit commercial use, as long as the share-alike is there and they have to give away their source, the NC is too harsh, and seperates us from a huge body of free material, like wikipedia. [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 13:07, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| * I think I understand most of that and am close to concurring. I met with Lion today in Seattle and he also gave me a push in this direction. I'm not sure I understand the last sentence about separating ourselves from Wikipedia tho? --[[Raymond King]] | <small>[[User talk:Rathbone|talk]]</small> 03:25, 23 Feb 2006 (EST)
| |
| ** Our work cannot be used on wikipedia and vice versa if we keep the nc. In fact, if someone's got an nc in their own license, their stuff can't be used here at all either, because of our adwords. [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 17:25, 23 Feb 2006 (EST)
| |
|
| |
| * ok, John is making the change.
| |
|
| |
|
| == Proposal 2006-02-19 Good Examples == | | == Proposal 2006-02-19 Good Examples == |