User talk:Maz
From CFD-Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
m (tack) |
m (i seemed to be immersed in too stringent atmosphere) |
||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
:I thought cc-by does not require "page history (source with exact revision)" and "at-least-five major authors" when you copy or translate a page -- kind of tiring tasks which GFDL requires (I had this feeling when I translated several articles from en.wikipedia to ja.wikipedia). On the other hand, I heard that [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode cc-by-2.5 (section 4b)] does not necessarily require to credit the authors, instead it permits the use of just the name of the web site as credit: just something like "copied from CFD wiki" -- much easier to reuse the material outside the wiki. | :I thought cc-by does not require "page history (source with exact revision)" and "at-least-five major authors" when you copy or translate a page -- kind of tiring tasks which GFDL requires (I had this feeling when I translated several articles from en.wikipedia to ja.wikipedia). On the other hand, I heard that [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode cc-by-2.5 (section 4b)] does not necessarily require to credit the authors, instead it permits the use of just the name of the web site as credit: just something like "copied from CFD wiki" -- much easier to reuse the material outside the wiki. | ||
:Nevertheless, I understand the benefit of GFDL from what you kindly explained and I agree that it was a reasonable choice. - [[User:Maz|maz]] 03:28, 19 April 2006 (MDT) | :Nevertheless, I understand the benefit of GFDL from what you kindly explained and I agree that it was a reasonable choice. - [[User:Maz|maz]] 03:28, 19 April 2006 (MDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::To use material from CFD-Wiki the only credit you have to give is the one explained [[CFD-Wiki:Copyrights#Using_content_from_CFD-Wiki_-_rights_and_obligations|here]]. --[[User:Jola|Jola]] 03:40, 19 April 2006 (MDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::Thanks for the link. I took a glance at the discussion on japanese wikipedia right now and found that they have operated it under stricter criteria than the english (and perhaps most of other language) wikipedia in terms of satisfying the GFDL requirements. Actually, at the same discussion they started to reconsider the operation. Sorry to bother you. - [[User:Maz|maz]] 09:18, 19 April 2006 (MDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 15:18, 19 April 2006
Hi Maz,
Welcome to CFD-Wiki! We're glad to have you aboard. I saw your comment about the license. Why are you not happy with a GFDL license? The attribution, commercial-use and share-alike version of the CC license is in fact very similar to the GFDL. We had a discussion about which license to use in CFD-Wiki here:
We decided to use GFDL because that is what Wikipedia uses and we wanted our material to be usable also on Wikipedia, thereby making it of value also for other fields outside of CFD.
--Jola 08:44, 18 April 2006 (MDT)
- Hej Jola,
- Thanks for your welcome and explanation.
- I thought cc-by does not require "page history (source with exact revision)" and "at-least-five major authors" when you copy or translate a page -- kind of tiring tasks which GFDL requires (I had this feeling when I translated several articles from en.wikipedia to ja.wikipedia). On the other hand, I heard that cc-by-2.5 (section 4b) does not necessarily require to credit the authors, instead it permits the use of just the name of the web site as credit: just something like "copied from CFD wiki" -- much easier to reuse the material outside the wiki.
- Nevertheless, I understand the benefit of GFDL from what you kindly explained and I agree that it was a reasonable choice. - maz 03:28, 19 April 2006 (MDT)
- Thanks for the link. I took a glance at the discussion on japanese wikipedia right now and found that they have operated it under stricter criteria than the english (and perhaps most of other language) wikipedia in terms of satisfying the GFDL requirements. Actually, at the same discussion they started to reconsider the operation. Sorry to bother you. - maz 09:18, 19 April 2006 (MDT)
