KDE UserBase Wiki talk:Copyrights: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:39, 27 January 2010

Should we also display the Creative Commons license? and if so, is the summary sufficient, or should the whole license be displayed?

My preference would be for the summary to be displayed together with a link to the full text. --annew 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In fact, AFAIK we shouldn't. The GFDL requires that you included a copy of the complete license in what you're distributing. And that's what we have here. The CC requires that you link to the appropriate Commons Deed on their site. --Jucato

As far as I know, GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 is not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, so maybe we should change it to version 1.3.--Qiii2006 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the eV for advice on this. Ade should know the answer. --annew 15:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:34, 27 January 2010 (view source) Qiii2006 (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 15:39, 27 January 2010 (view source) Annew (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:

	As far as I know, GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Compatibility_with_Creative_Commons_licensing_terms not compatible with] the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, so maybe we should change it to version 1.3.--[[User:Qiii2006\|Qiii2006]] 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)		As far as I know, GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Compatibility_with_Creative_Commons_licensing_terms not compatible with] the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, so maybe we should change it to version 1.3.--[[User:Qiii2006\|Qiii2006]] 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

			:I've asked the eV for advice on this. Ade should know the answer. --[[User:Annew\|annew]] 15:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)