User talk:Erik Möller
- 1 Roleplaying Games
- 2 Licenses
- 3 Beats adding something to User: Discussion! ;-)
- 4 Admin and translation questions
- 5 Static version
- 6 What a mess ;-)
- 7 Language names in Template:Definition-langs
- 8 Don't know if you consider this a problem
- 9 Image deletion request
- 10 Admin
- 11 Question
- 12 Search engine
- 13 Short copyleft licences
- 14 Requesting guidance
Happily, but what sort of information would you like exactly? --Ricardo Gladwell 14:53, 4 May 2006 (CEST)
- That's largely up to you -- and it's essentially an opportunity for you to reach out to other friends of role-playing, and to communicate to them the importance of free content. You can add pictures, links to important web sites, philosophy, etc. I'd like you to think about what would appeal to you if, as a role-playing fan who has never heard about free content, you viewed this portal for the first time. The one thing that's important to me is that we always make it clear that this is about free content, and that non-free content, where it is useful, should be made free to the largest extent possible. To create subpages e.g. for philosophy or other purposes, use the [[/subpage title]] syntax.--Erik Möller 15:07, 4 May 2006 (CEST)
- I would be happy to do that because I can copy content from my organisation, the Free RPG Community. My only concern is that content here is licensed under the CCPL. I feel the Free Content Definition should remain license-agnostic, but by CC'ing content here it favorus the Creative Commons licenses and, while some of us my share the CC's aims, not all of us would support its licenses. There is also the problem that content I submit here goes under the CC which means that I can't copy content back to my own (non-CC licensed) pages due to license incompatability. --Ricardo Gladwell 13:28, 5 May 2006 (CEST)
- Our license, CC-BY, is probably one way compatible with the GPL, since all it requires is attribution, i.e. less than the GPL -- this itself is a right which you cannot even give up under European jurisdictions.--Erik Möller 14:09, 5 May 2006 (CEST)
- Are you sure about that? The technological measures clause, for example, isn't in the GPL. The license seems to contain a lot of other stuff (webcasting, mechanical rights, etc) that do not appear in the GPL. --Ricardo Gladwell 19:29, 5 May 2006 (CEST)
- Ugh, I didn't realize CC-BY had a technical measures clause. That is rather annoying, especially given that this clause is not mentioned in the summary -- making the license on the surface look like a simple BSD type license. Arguably, the freedom protected here is the same protected by the GPL through the requirement to make available modifiable forms. The other clauses (webcasting, mechanical rights) are there "for the avoidance of doubt", so I think we can pretend that the same rights are covered by the general usage rights granted by the GPL. Besides all this, we're all friends, so I think we can bend the law a little.--Erik Möller 19:54, 5 May 2006 (CEST)
- Yes, that's a problem with CC licenses. People are inclined to think it's enough to know about the "human code" and the shiny logos. But, once you read the "legal code", you may have some surprises. I've written a small text which compares BSD and CC-BY for that purpose (but it's in French, sorry ;-)). --Antoine 20:00, 5 May 2006 (CEST)
- I agree the CC license summaries can be misleading - ppl should really be directed to the legal code. It might be an idea to petition the FSF to check to see if the CC BY/BY-SA are GPL compatible - I don't know if you guys carry any more weight in these circles than I do? --Ricardo Gladwell 21:35, 6 May 2006 (CEST)
Erik, what do you think of the proposed scheme for the Licenses page?' Also, should we list some prominent software licenses? For now, I have included the GPL (most used copyleft license) and the MIT license (the simplest non-copyleft license AFAIK). --Antoine 22:33, 24 May 2006 (CEST)
- I like it a lot, esp. with the detailed explanations. Perhaps Licenses should list the most popular ones, and Licenses/All could include others -- to the extent you're happy to fill in the grid for the remaining free software licenses, of course. ;-) --Erik Möller 08:27, 25 May 2006 (CEST)
- I've thought about this and, since we are really listing free content licenses (esp. outside of software), I don't think it would be useful to clutter the grid with a lot of software licenses. Instead we can give a link to existing license lists (FSF, OSI).
- Have a nice trip! --Antoine 14:26, 31 May 2006 (CEST)
- a dupe?! hmmmmm ... I noted there was no "Minor Edit" checkbox ... how odd*
Beats adding something to User: Discussion! ;-)
I've crossed your trail 2 or 3 times in the past 24 hours. "Origins of Peace" is what I'm playing off, in resonance with DKosOpedia.
just wanted to say hello
please peek my http://bentrem.sycks.net/gnodal/ "Participatory Deliberation" ... it's not only sloppy but very Web1.0; I only just recovered it via archive.org ... likewise the historigraphy paper/notes I'm posting to http://bentrem.sycks.net/wiki/
ben aka hfx_ben aka WillowBear aka Karma Chöpal
Admin and translation questions
Sure I could take a broom and clean out trash when I see it. Nowadays with the "undo" function it is just one click more for an un-admin to do it so it does not make much of a difference really... I don't promise to do a lot, but I guess I'll take a look at RC when I visit the site.
I have created User:Habj/Translator questions 1.0. If the people working on the definitions think this is a good way of collaborating with the translators, I suggest we move it to the main namespace. // habj 03:20, 24 February 2007 (CET)
What a mess ;-)
Hi, well thanks to Habj I had a look at this wiki. If you need something urgently, please let me know. Sorry, but it is hard for me to follow to many different projects. Ciao!!! :-) --SabineCretella 23:17, 28 February 2007 (CET)
- p.s. with the mess I refer to your user page ... so I am just using your own words :-D
Language names in Template:Definition-langs
Is español, not Español. This second, Español is misspelling. In Spanish, language names are like español, francés, inglés, etc. For example, whitehouse.gov is wrong beacuse say En Español and this is incorrect and absurd. The expresion En español is better. Excuse my bad English. Regards. --AlGarcia 13:11, 1 March 2007 (CET)
- Swedish does not write the names of languages with initial capital letter either: it is "svenska", normally. On the other hand, in a list it is possible to use initial caps on all items. Like this:
- None of these words are capitalized in themselves. I see the list of languages as a similar list. In my opinion, mixing español and svenska with Deutsch and English in the list looks pretty bad. Better use initial capital letter on them all? // habj 21:57, 1 March 2007 (CET)
Don't know if you consider this a problem
Just for your information (I can well understand if you consider this a problem for yahoo, not your site). Yahoo mails spam filter got a false positive from your e-mail address confirmation mail. I don't know if you are even the person on this site who comes close to having anything to do with it's configuration etc, but since you are somebody I know here (the only one besides Angela and Sabine Cretella - and Sabine I only know from the mailing lists, as a name), I'll tell you, so that if you think it is a problem, you can see to it, or forward it to the person who might consider whether it is a problem. Like I said, I have no idea if it is significant, but there it is. -- Cimon Avaro 18:54, 26 June 2007 (CEST)
Image deletion request
Image:Rick_new1.jpg, which was uploaded for whatever reason to here, by some guy trying to get into an article in en-WP. See also OTRS ticket #2008060710002451. w:User:Howcheng 16:05, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks I'm really interested in using this resource at some point to bring together all of my thoughts on free culture, privacy, etc. In the meantime, a little maintenance is no problem. Koavf 04:06, 13 May 2012 (EDT)
Hi Mr. Möller,
I have a question about your Licenses/NC essay. While a lot of it makes sense to me, there is one thing I'm not sure about, and that's how the content creator would earn money from the work. For example, Simon Klose, the director of TPB AFK, chose a -NC license so that he could sell several TV networks the right to air his film. Otherwise, couldn't they have aired it for free? Similarly, take a book that costs $12 to make. Pretend that there are two copies available for sale, each from a different publisher: Publisher 1 sells it for $12.50, from which $0.25 goes to the author; Publisher 2 sells it for $12.40, from which nothing goes to the author. Why wouldn't the individual costumers or bookstores buy the cheaper one from Publisher 2? TIA. Kudu (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2013 (EDT)
Please add I went to add FreedomDefined as a search engine in my browser, but
opensearch_desc.php was non-existent. Please add mw:Extension:OpenSearchXml to make this site searchable from the browser. Thanks. Koavf (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
- Also You may want to update the interwiki map so that interwiki links like
mw:actually go to MediaWiki... https://mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:OpenSearchXml . Koavf (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2013 (EDT)
Short copyleft licences
I like the idea that copyleft licences can be used to prevent derivatives of a free culture work from being re-monopolized, but so far I haven't found any particularly short copyleft licences. Perhaps a copyleft licence can't be quite as short as, say, the ISC licence, but surely it can be made shorter than all the copyleft licences I've seen so far. Do you know of any particularly short copyleft licences that would meet the definition of a free culture licence? 126.96.36.199 00:04, 30 March 2015 (EDT)
Season's greetings. Presently I am translating "definition" to lang-mr, While translating I am getting a little bit confused,(May be due to my personal linguistic limitations with en) while trying to understand third sentence in the definition summary section, namely:
- "The definition distinguishes between free works, and free licenses " which " can be used to legally protect the status of a free work."
- Here in above sentence whether usage of word which is reffering to only "free licenses" or it is referring to (word 'The definition' thereby) "free works, and free licenses" ?
- If I break above sentence and replacing word which with "free licenses" sentence will look like following :
- Option 1)The definition distinguishes between free works, and free licenses. Free licenses can be used to legally protect the status of a free work.
- If I break above sentence and replacing word which with "The definition (meaning thereby free works, and free licenses)" sentence will look like following :
- Option 2)The definition distinguishes between free works, and free licenses. "The definition (meaning thereby free works, and free licenses)" can be used to legally protect the status of a free work.
Prima facia my personal feeling is meaning as per "Option 1)" is expected. But due to my own linguistic limitations I am not feeling sure about it, hence requesting your guidance in understanding expected correct meaning out of the third sentence mentioned in the definition summarry.
Eagerly waiting for your guidance. Thanks and warm regards