Anonymous user
Rosetta Code talk:Copyrights: Difference between revisions
→Book: Picolisp by example derived from the site
(→GPL: I'm familiar with that transition.) |
|||
Line 41:
:: Well you perhaps have noticed that the licensing on Wikipedia have migrated from GNU/FDL to [[wp:Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License|CC-by-sa]]. Something I am sure of is that noone contacted me to ask me any authorisation to change the license. Someone from my LUG explained me that the license migration process have proceeded as follow: the license was FDL version X or greater, they wrote a new FDL version so undated WP to this new one, and this new one was re-written in a cc-by-sa compatible way, so they have switched WP contents from FDL to [[wp:Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License|CC-by-sa]]. You should verify if the process was exactly this one. Also we should update the templates like the one on this page [[Mandelbrot_set]] because it tells the WP content is FDL while it is not anymore. Now should RC also switch from FDL to CC-by-sa, I have no opinion on the question. --[[User:Blue Prawn|Blue Prawn]] 17:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
::: Wikipedia was using GFDL 1.3 at the time, which explicitly allowed that kind of a transition, for a limited period. I missed the window. (Largely because of a series of 60-80 hours work weeks piled on top of other responsibilities. Been having a similar schedule for the past three months, actually.) I've looked at that transition quite a number of times, and have had to give a lot of thought about how to get around not having that window available. :| --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 20:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
==Book: Picolisp by example derived from the site==
I've found that the book [http://www.scribd.com/doc/103733857/PicoLisp-by-Example picolisp by example] is out and am concerned about the statement of authorship given on the second page as it doesn't mention this sites contributors even partially.
I am also concerned about how difficult they make it to find out such authorship. By selecting just what links they left in the book they make it difficult to track authorship of tasks, but by leaving in external links from this RC site they show that it is possible to leave in them in.
What I don't want to do is attribute any malice from the authors in doing this, but I don't think enough attribution has been given to authors and an easy method for that attribution to be found out, i.e. linking to tasks on this site, has been elided. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 06:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Have I missed some announcement of this book on RC? I just googled and found nothing.
| |||