danieldk@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> opinions ? > > Something that may be important in the longer run: do we ask that people > provide content under a specific license? At this point in time it is > still possible to add such requirement, it would be more difficult to do > it retroactively. Wow. Anyone firm with the (sometimes rather strange) CC wording on their licenses? I never really thought about that for a wiki and I really do have a hard time choosing one of those licences. They have a wiki license (licence or license? What is it?) <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/> - or at least they promote that for usage on Wikis. But is this really what we/you/they/others want? Ralph -- Ralph Angenendt......ra@xxxxxxxxxxxx | .."Text processing has made it possible Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even one Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20061002/98b5ced5/attachment.bin
