Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!

Examine individual changes

Abuse Filter navigation (Home | Recent filter changes | Examine past edits | Abuse log)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page allows you to examine the variables generated by the Abuse Filter for an individual change, and test it against filters.

Variables generated for this change

VariableValue
Name of the user account (user_name)
Rao0102
Age of the user account (user_age)
9793
Page ID (page_id)
1291
Page namespace (page_namespace)
1
Page title (without namespace) (page_title)
Definition/Unstable
Full page title (page_prefixedtitle)
Talk:Definition/Unstable
Action (action)
edit
Edit summary/reason (summary)
Nike roshe run sort hvid
Whether or not the edit is marked as minor (no longer in use) (minor_edit)
Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext)
* '''[{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|action=edit&section=new}} Start a new discussion topic]''' * [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=2129}} Archived comments until June 20, 2006] * [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=8702}} Archived comments until January 3, 2010] ---- __TOC__ == Need definition for "Unstable" as you know or understand it == Thoughts, anyone? Anyone at all that isn't a machine? == [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits == For what it's worth, I agree with [[User:Mormegil]] and his [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12071&oldid=12070 recent revert]. I don't understand what problem [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12044&oldid=12024 the edits in question] are trying to solve. Perhaps if they are explained them here, we can talk about it. —<b>[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#C40099">m</font><font color="#600099">a</font><font color="#2D0399">k</font><font color="#362365">o</font>]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#000000">๛</font>]]</b> 19:41, 26 September 2011 (EDT) == Suppressing copyleft == In re 171.226.171.169’s ''I am trying to delist GFDL, GPL, LGPL, CC-BY-SA and other copyleft licenses'': While I can understand (and, for a part, agree with) the opinion that copyleft licenses are not “free”, I have to point out that this would be an ''extreme'' change of the definition. Note that this definition originates at Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation, which use copyleft licenses extensively (the whole body of Wikipedia text is licensed under CC-BY-SA, for start), and which use the Definition as the [[wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy|criterion of acceptability]]. Changing the Definition so as to exclude copyleft would mean the whole Wikipedia contents would be against its own rules. I just can’t imagine the definition could change so radically (without becoming a completely different definition). An alternate definition is possible, but would be exactly that – ''alternate'', not just a new version of this. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT) I'd think that CC-BY-SA and LGPL may be free, but GFDL and GPL are '''obviously''' non-free. Because you can include CC-BY-SA or LGPL works as part of works distributed under other licenses, but you cannot do the same thing with GPL and GFDL works. This is also why Wikipedia has moved from GFDL to GFDL + CC-BY-SA. Section 5 "Combining Documents" of the GFDL: :You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers. :The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work. :In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements". [[Special:Contributions/171.226.97.137|171.226.97.137]] 07:56, 31 October 2011 (EDT) : Maybe I don’t understand your specific point, but AFAICT you ''cannot'' generally combine a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-BY-SA] work with a work under an other license, or, more specifically, when you combine a CC-BY-SA work with another work, the result must be licensed under CC-BY-SA as well. That is the same copyleft as in GFDL/GPL. On the other hand, LGPL allows you to combine an LGPL work (usually, a library) with another work (usually, an application), and distribute the result under any license. You cannot do that with CC-BY-SA, that is what the “share-alike” (-SA) tag is all about. On the other hand, [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC-BY] is a non-copyleft license which would allow that (but it is not the license Wikipedia uses). --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 11:52, 1 November 2011 (EDT) : True, GPL might allow less freedoms than for instance the MIT license. However that does not necesserily make GPL a non-free license. If you define a ''free license'' as the license with the most freedoms, then even the MIT/BSD/... licenses would have to be considered non-free, then only public domain could be considered truly free. However as there already is a definition for the public domain, the whole project of "Definition of Free Cultural Works" would not make sense then. Of course, the problem remains as of how broad you would want the Definition of Free Cultural Works to be. But from looking at the previous versions, the idea and intention of Definition of Free Cultural Works seems to have been to cover copyleft licenses as well, as they do not harm the main idea and purpose of Free Content. As [[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] said before, excluding copyleft licenses is a completely different definition. Maybe you are more looking for http://copyfree.org/standard/ instead? --[[User:T X|T X]] 14:36, 1 November 2011 (EDT) == Definition of "Can" missing == "Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can use, study, copy, change and improve..." -> Tribes in a lot of countries don't have computers - and therefore ''can't'' use the MIT/GPL/... licensed software I wrote. So my work is not a Free Cultural Work? (I guess such a conclusion is not intended) Maybe a definition for certain words, like "can", "may", ... should be added. Similiarly as keywords were specified for IETF's Internet Standards / RFCs (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119). --[[User:T X|T X]] 13:37, 1 November 2011 (EDT) In a similar vein, "should" is used a lot where some might argue for "must" (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt ) ([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006433.html idea from]). - [[User:KTucker|K]] 17:48, 12 December 2011 (EST) == Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' == Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can * Use * Study * Copy * Change and Improve I'm having two points I do not quite like about these four freedoms: * 'Study' is a form of 'Use': It's just a more specific form of usage - which, agreed, a lot of EULAs and laws try to exclude. * 'Distribution' should be added: If you were only looking at these four freedoms, even some content which you get via an NDA might fit these points. You can use, study and even copy the work for your own needs, you may change and improve it - however you won't be allowed to share any of these things afterwards. Therefore my suggestion, making more a whole trinity with each point of the trinity being a duality: * Use and Study * Copy and Distribute * Change and Improve So that the second verb of each freedom is actually a more specific form of the first verb of each freedom. The purpose of the second verb is to better reflect the true, good intent of the more neutral, more generic action defined in the first verb of a freedom, and to place some emphasize on this good intent, the idea behind it. (I'm not quite sure whether I'd prefer the word 'distribute' or 'share'. Maybe a native English speaker could give some insight on what (s)he thinks the differing connotations might be.) --[[User:T X|T X]] 04:25, 4 November 2011 (EDT) :: The libre knowledge definition puts it this way: <center> {| class="wikitable" width="50%" | Users of libre knowledge are free to :(0) use the work for any purpose :(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs :(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part :(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result. |} </center> ::i.e. "study" is about being able to adapt/modify - use (0) and adapt (1) to ''help yourself'', "copy" (2) is about sharing to ''help your neighbour'', and the last freedom (3) is to clarify that you can also share your modified versions (to ''help the community''). ::Personally, I prefer to retain the link with the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] as does the [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge libre knowledge definition]. Knowledge and cultural resources cannot be regarded as free if they cannot be accessed and modified with libre software. Consistency is important. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:12, 12 December 2011 (EST) ==Libre== Please make it clear that this would also be the "[[Libre|libre cultural works]]" definition. :: The libre knowledge definition is completely compatible as far as I can tell. It appears in some form on the following pages: [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge Declaration on libre knowledge], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_Knowledge Libre knowledge on Wikipedia] and [http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre Say libre]. i.e. at some key point state that free means "libre"/"free as in freedom" - perhaps as simply as writing free/libre at least once near the beginning. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:37, 3 March 2012 (EST) :: I have created a parallel "libre" version - [[Libre|Libre Cultural Works Definition]] - but would prefer this not to be necessary. Discuss this issue right here or on the libre version's [[Talk:Libre|discussion page]] - Thanks - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:39, 5 March 2012 (EST) ::I find the gratis meaning of "free" to be very confusing to newcomers and am in favor of reworking the text to use "libre" or another unambigious adjective. [[User:Cov|Cov]] 19:18, 2 May 2013 (EDT) == Free-Libre-Open Hardware Definition == Hello, I'm starting a "friendly fork" of the OSHW Definition here because, currently engaged in writing a free/libre/open hardware project proposal to a set of potential clients who are not at all familiar with the whole genre of free/libre/open approaches, I feel the current OSHW Definition is not concise enough to just reproduce as an excerpt. I also feel the current OSHW Definition risks the same division between "open source" methods and "free" ethics that has complicated relations for years within the free/libre/open source software community. Back in 2004 while preparing a presentation deck for my Director General in government, I needed to cram the OSI definition into a single screen: http://www.goslingcommunity.org/gtec2004.shtml In the end I felt the short version I had adapted was more useful as a definition than the original, in the same sense that dictionaries also hold to very concise phrases. Over the years too, I came to see the importance of including both the methods and ethics elements into projects. So what appears here as a "fork" to facilitate discussion is the current draft text that appears in my own free/libre/open hardware document. ''DRAFT: '' http://freedomdefined.org/User:Jpotvin/Free-Libre-Open_Hardware_Definition I hope nobody is offended by this thorough change. Putting it up as a fork here just seemed to best way to discuss it without interfering with your main definition text. Regards, Joseph Potvin == Updating and creating a stable version. == Hello, my name is Michelle Kosik, I'm new to this so please excuse my inexperience. I was hopping we can make the font bigger or bolder. How do I change the version to the stable vershion? : You don’t just change the stable version. See [[Authoring process]] for more information. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 05:18, 26 March 2013 (EDT) == Permalink == [[Definition]] should contain a link to [[Definition/1.1]] to make it easier for people to refer to that version specifically. (People who write books, for example, might not intend to link to [[Definition]] which is a moving target, but to [[Definition/1.1]] which their book refers to.) : I added the link into the grey introduction box. Do you think it is OK? --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 11:58, 17 February 2015 (EST) == Nike roshe run dame == De mest popul&aelig;re sko [url=http://billigeairhuarache.dk/]nike roshe run [/url] blandt Nike familien er Nike NBA serie, som mange NBA spillere b&aelig;re. Siden midten af 1980 ' erne, har Nike domineret basketball sko marked. Meget af Nikes succes med basketballsko kan henf&Oslash;res til populariteten af Michael Jordan. Sammen med Jordan brand, Nike s&aelig;lger mange basketballsko for athletic og mode form&Aring;l. Nike basketballsko er godkendt af popul&aelig;re NBA spillere som Kobe Bryant, Lebron James og Dwayne Wade, at n&aelig;vne nogle f&Aring;. Selvom der er mange sandaler inden for linjen Cole Haan, er den Nike Air Angela Slide Cole Haan sandaler mest begunstiget, fordi det giver god st&Oslash;tte til foden, mens du g&Oslash;r det muligt at tr&aelig;kke vejret, da de fleste sandaler g&Oslash;r. Der er ogs&Aring; et [url=http://billigeairhuarache.dk/nike-roshe-run-2014-dame-c-9.html]nike roshe run dame[/url] godt valg af farver, n&Aring;r det kommer til enten brun eller sort. Du kan f&Aring; den lige sort eller woodberry, som er en dejlig rig brun, en brun og en tan skygge. Nike Roshe k&Oslash;re var beregnet til at k&Oslash;re som det er let og meget &Aring;ndbar. De har ekstra beskyttelse n&aelig;r anklen til at give den bedste komfort under l&Oslash;b. Nike 0000 opfylder de forskellige behov hos mennesker, der tog.* St&Oslash;tte sko giver sammen med den mellems&Aring;l d&aelig;mpning forudsat utrolige stabilitet til l&Oslash;bere for at moderere over pronators.* Sko er designet til at v&aelig;re lettere og smallere der er afg&Oslash;rende for at v&aelig;re effektiv mens racing.* Buer i skoene st&Oslash;tte b&Aring;de h&Oslash;j bue mennesker og lav arch mennesker. Minimum mediale support tilbydes i Nike Air Max 90 USA sko.* Designet er udf&Oslash;rt p&Aring; en s&Aring;dan m&Aring;d [url=http://billigeairhuarache.dk/damen-nike-roshe-run-mid-sort-cool-graring-p-52.html]nike roshe run dame sort[/url]e, at det giver maksimal svar selv med alle de d&aelig;mpning, er n&Oslash;dvendige.* Stivere h&aelig;le kan v&aelig;re brugerdefinerede designet til folk, der &Oslash;nsker at styre deres bev&aelig;gelse mens du k&Oslash;rer eller for folk, der har flad fod. N&Aring;r Nike Roshe k&Oslash;re silhuet blev f&Oslash;rst indf&Oslash;rt i sneaker verden, faldt mange mennesker straks i k&aelig;rlighed med letv&aelig;gts-runner. Den sneaker komfortable opbygge var udstyret med nogle af de fleste trendy stilarter fra Nike. Siden da har flere versioner af Roshe frigivet, herunder Nike Flyknit Roshe k&Oslash;rer. Sat til udgivelse i en "Ulv Grey" facade [url=http://billigeairhuarache.dk/nike-roshe-run-2014-dame-c-9.html]nike roshe run dame tilbud[/url], tag et kig p&Aring; den nyeste tilf&Oslash;jelse til Roshe K&Oslash;r familia.
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext)
* '''[{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|action=edit&section=new}} Start a new discussion topic]''' * [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=2129}} Archived comments until June 20, 2006] * [{{fullurl:Talk:Definition/Unstable|oldid=8702}} Archived comments until January 3, 2010] ---- __TOC__ == Need definition for "Unstable" as you know or understand it == Thoughts, anyone? Anyone at all that isn't a machine? == [[User:TruthWorldOrder]] Edits == For what it's worth, I agree with [[User:Mormegil]] and his [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12071&oldid=12070 recent revert]. I don't understand what problem [http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition%2FUnstable&action=historysubmit&diff=12044&oldid=12024 the edits in question] are trying to solve. Perhaps if they are explained them here, we can talk about it. —<b>[[User:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#C40099">m</font><font color="#600099">a</font><font color="#2D0399">k</font><font color="#362365">o</font>]][[User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill|<font color="#000000">๛</font>]]</b> 19:41, 26 September 2011 (EDT) == Suppressing copyleft == In re 171.226.171.169’s ''I am trying to delist GFDL, GPL, LGPL, CC-BY-SA and other copyleft licenses'': While I can understand (and, for a part, agree with) the opinion that copyleft licenses are not “free”, I have to point out that this would be an ''extreme'' change of the definition. Note that this definition originates at Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation, which use copyleft licenses extensively (the whole body of Wikipedia text is licensed under CC-BY-SA, for start), and which use the Definition as the [[wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy|criterion of acceptability]]. Changing the Definition so as to exclude copyleft would mean the whole Wikipedia contents would be against its own rules. I just can’t imagine the definition could change so radically (without becoming a completely different definition). An alternate definition is possible, but would be exactly that – ''alternate'', not just a new version of this. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (EDT) I'd think that CC-BY-SA and LGPL may be free, but GFDL and GPL are '''obviously''' non-free. Because you can include CC-BY-SA or LGPL works as part of works distributed under other licenses, but you cannot do the same thing with GPL and GFDL works. This is also why Wikipedia has moved from GFDL to GFDL + CC-BY-SA. Section 5 "Combining Documents" of the GFDL: :You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers. :The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work. :In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements". [[Special:Contributions/171.226.97.137|171.226.97.137]] 07:56, 31 October 2011 (EDT) : Maybe I don’t understand your specific point, but AFAICT you ''cannot'' generally combine a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-BY-SA] work with a work under an other license, or, more specifically, when you combine a CC-BY-SA work with another work, the result must be licensed under CC-BY-SA as well. That is the same copyleft as in GFDL/GPL. On the other hand, LGPL allows you to combine an LGPL work (usually, a library) with another work (usually, an application), and distribute the result under any license. You cannot do that with CC-BY-SA, that is what the “share-alike” (-SA) tag is all about. On the other hand, [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC-BY] is a non-copyleft license which would allow that (but it is not the license Wikipedia uses). --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] 11:52, 1 November 2011 (EDT) : True, GPL might allow less freedoms than for instance the MIT license. However that does not necesserily make GPL a non-free license. If you define a ''free license'' as the license with the most freedoms, then even the MIT/BSD/... licenses would have to be considered non-free, then only public domain could be considered truly free. However as there already is a definition for the public domain, the whole project of "Definition of Free Cultural Works" would not make sense then. Of course, the problem remains as of how broad you would want the Definition of Free Cultural Works to be. But from looking at the previous versions, the idea and intention of Definition of Free Cultural Works seems to have been to cover copyleft licenses as well, as they do not harm the main idea and purpose of Free Content. As [[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] said before, excluding copyleft licenses is a completely different definition. Maybe you are more looking for http://copyfree.org/standard/ instead? --[[User:T X|T X]] 14:36, 1 November 2011 (EDT) == Definition of "Can" missing == "Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can use, study, copy, change and improve..." -> Tribes in a lot of countries don't have computers - and therefore ''can't'' use the MIT/GPL/... licensed software I wrote. So my work is not a Free Cultural Work? (I guess such a conclusion is not intended) Maybe a definition for certain words, like "can", "may", ... should be added. Similiarly as keywords were specified for IETF's Internet Standards / RFCs (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119). --[[User:T X|T X]] 13:37, 1 November 2011 (EDT) In a similar vein, "should" is used a lot where some might argue for "must" (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt ) ([http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006433.html idea from]). - [[User:KTucker|K]] 17:48, 12 December 2011 (EST) == Merging 4 freedoms to 3, explicitly adding 'Distribution' == Free Cultural Works are works which anyone can * Use * Study * Copy * Change and Improve I'm having two points I do not quite like about these four freedoms: * 'Study' is a form of 'Use': It's just a more specific form of usage - which, agreed, a lot of EULAs and laws try to exclude. * 'Distribution' should be added: If you were only looking at these four freedoms, even some content which you get via an NDA might fit these points. You can use, study and even copy the work for your own needs, you may change and improve it - however you won't be allowed to share any of these things afterwards. Therefore my suggestion, making more a whole trinity with each point of the trinity being a duality: * Use and Study * Copy and Distribute * Change and Improve So that the second verb of each freedom is actually a more specific form of the first verb of each freedom. The purpose of the second verb is to better reflect the true, good intent of the more neutral, more generic action defined in the first verb of a freedom, and to place some emphasize on this good intent, the idea behind it. (I'm not quite sure whether I'd prefer the word 'distribute' or 'share'. Maybe a native English speaker could give some insight on what (s)he thinks the differing connotations might be.) --[[User:T X|T X]] 04:25, 4 November 2011 (EDT) :: The libre knowledge definition puts it this way: <center> {| class="wikitable" width="50%" | Users of libre knowledge are free to :(0) use the work for any purpose :(1) study its mechanisms, to be able to modify and adapt it to their own needs :(2) make and distribute copies, in whole or in part :(3) enhance and/or extend the work and share the result. |} </center> ::i.e. "study" is about being able to adapt/modify - use (0) and adapt (1) to ''help yourself'', "copy" (2) is about sharing to ''help your neighbour'', and the last freedom (3) is to clarify that you can also share your modified versions (to ''help the community''). ::Personally, I prefer to retain the link with the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software definition] as does the [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge libre knowledge definition]. Knowledge and cultural resources cannot be regarded as free if they cannot be accessed and modified with libre software. Consistency is important. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:12, 12 December 2011 (EST) ==Libre== Please make it clear that this would also be the "[[Libre|libre cultural works]]" definition. :: The libre knowledge definition is completely compatible as far as I can tell. It appears in some form on the following pages: [http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge Declaration on libre knowledge], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_Knowledge Libre knowledge on Wikipedia] and [http://wikieducator.org/Say_Libre Say libre]. i.e. at some key point state that free means "libre"/"free as in freedom" - perhaps as simply as writing free/libre at least once near the beginning. - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:37, 3 March 2012 (EST) :: I have created a parallel "libre" version - [[Libre|Libre Cultural Works Definition]] - but would prefer this not to be necessary. Discuss this issue right here or on the libre version's [[Talk:Libre|discussion page]] - Thanks - [[User:KTucker|K]] 18:39, 5 March 2012 (EST) ::I find the gratis meaning of "free" to be very confusing to newcomers and am in favor of reworking the text to use "libre" or another unambigious adjective. [[User:Cov|Cov]] 19:18, 2 May 2013 (EDT) == Free-Libre-Open Hardware Definition == Hello, I'm starting a "friendly fork" of the OSHW Definition here because, currently engaged in writing a free/libre/open hardware project proposal to a set of potential clients who are not at all familiar with the whole genre of free/libre/open approaches, I feel the current OSHW Definition is not concise enough to just reproduce as an excerpt. I also feel the current OSHW Definition risks the same division between "open source" methods and "free" ethics that has complicated relations for years within the free/libre/open source software community. Back in 2004 while preparing a presentation deck for my Director General in government, I needed to cram the OSI definition into a single screen: http://www.goslingcommunity.org/gtec2004.shtml In the end I felt the short version I had adapted was more useful as a definition than the original, in the same sense that dictionaries also hold to very concise phrases. Over the years too, I came to see the importance of including both the methods and ethics elements into projects. So what appears here as a "fork" to facilitate discussion is the current draft text that appears in my own free/libre/open hardware document. ''DRAFT: '' http://freedomdefined.org/User:Jpotvin/Free-Libre-Open_Hardware_Definition I hope nobody is offended by this thorough change. Putting it up as a fork here just seemed to best way to discuss it without interfering with your main definition text. Regards, Joseph Potvin == Updating and creating a stable version. == Hello, my name is Michelle Kosik, I'm new to this so please excuse my inexperience. I was hopping we can make the font bigger or bolder. How do I change the version to the stable vershion? : You don’t just change the stable version. See [[Authoring process]] for more information. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 05:18, 26 March 2013 (EDT) == Permalink == [[Definition]] should contain a link to [[Definition/1.1]] to make it easier for people to refer to that version specifically. (People who write books, for example, might not intend to link to [[Definition]] which is a moving target, but to [[Definition/1.1]] which their book refers to.) : I added the link into the grey introduction box. Do you think it is OK? --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 11:58, 17 February 2015 (EST) == Nike roshe run dame == De mest popul&aelig;re sko [url=http://billigeairhuarache.dk/]nike roshe run [/url] blandt Nike familien er Nike NBA serie, som mange NBA spillere b&aelig;re. Siden midten af 1980 ' erne, har Nike domineret basketball sko marked. Meget af Nikes succes med basketballsko kan henf&Oslash;res til populariteten af Michael Jordan. Sammen med Jordan brand, Nike s&aelig;lger mange basketballsko for athletic og mode form&Aring;l. Nike basketballsko er godkendt af popul&aelig;re NBA spillere som Kobe Bryant, Lebron James og Dwayne Wade, at n&aelig;vne nogle f&Aring;. Selvom der er mange sandaler inden for linjen Cole Haan, er den Nike Air Angela Slide Cole Haan sandaler mest begunstiget, fordi det giver god st&Oslash;tte til foden, mens du g&Oslash;r det muligt at tr&aelig;kke vejret, da de fleste sandaler g&Oslash;r. Der er ogs&Aring; et [url=http://billigeairhuarache.dk/nike-roshe-run-2014-dame-c-9.html]nike roshe run dame[/url] godt valg af farver, n&Aring;r det kommer til enten brun eller sort. Du kan f&Aring; den lige sort eller woodberry, som er en dejlig rig brun, en brun og en tan skygge. Nike Roshe k&Oslash;re var beregnet til at k&Oslash;re som det er let og meget &Aring;ndbar. De har ekstra beskyttelse n&aelig;r anklen til at give den bedste komfort under l&Oslash;b. Nike 0000 opfylder de forskellige behov hos mennesker, der tog.* St&Oslash;tte sko giver sammen med den mellems&Aring;l d&aelig;mpning forudsat utrolige stabilitet til l&Oslash;bere for at moderere over pronators.* Sko er designet til at v&aelig;re lettere og smallere der er afg&Oslash;rende for at v&aelig;re effektiv mens racing.* Buer i skoene st&Oslash;tte b&Aring;de h&Oslash;j bue mennesker og lav arch mennesker. Minimum mediale support tilbydes i Nike Air Max 90 USA sko.* Designet er udf&Oslash;rt p&Aring; en s&Aring;dan m&Aring;d [url=http://billigeairhuarache.dk/damen-nike-roshe-run-mid-sort-cool-graring-p-52.html]nike roshe run dame sort[/url]e, at det giver maksimal svar selv med alle de d&aelig;mpning, er n&Oslash;dvendige.* Stivere h&aelig;le kan v&aelig;re brugerdefinerede designet til folk, der &Oslash;nsker at styre deres bev&aelig;gelse mens du k&Oslash;rer eller for folk, der har flad fod. N&Aring;r Nike Roshe k&Oslash;re silhuet blev f&Oslash;rst indf&Oslash;rt i sneaker verden, faldt mange mennesker straks i k&aelig;rlighed med letv&aelig;gts-runner. Den sneaker komfortable opbygge var udstyret med nogle af de fleste trendy stilarter fra Nike. Siden da har flere versioner af Roshe frigivet, herunder Nike Flyknit Roshe k&Oslash;rer. Sat til udgivelse i en "Ulv Grey" facade [url=http://billigeairhuarache.dk/nike-roshe-run-2014-dame-c-9.html]nike roshe run dame tilbud[/url], tag et kig p&Aring; den nyeste tilf&Oslash;jelse til Roshe K&Oslash;r familia. == Nike roshe run sort hvid == Der er ingen tvivl om, [<a href="http://billigeairhuarache.dk/damen-nike-roshe-run-palm-trees-sort-hvid-p-1.html">nike roshe run sort hvid</a>] at der er masser af billigt fodtØj pÅ markedet i dag. Ofte er det fristende at kØbe et par sandaler, bare fordi prisen er god. Problem i efter et par bærer de begynder at se lurvet og nedslidt og snart efter ender bryde en rem mÅske. SÅ virkelig er der ingen penge opsparing i denne sag. Det er meget bedre at sætte ud de ekstra penge pÅ et par Nike Air Angela Slide Cole Haan sandaler. Nike virksomhed er en stor virksomhed at registrere de fleste af store Øjeblikke i forskellige omrÅder. Nike lØbesko vidne til forskellige store Øjeblikke i historien. Nik fodbold sko i 2010 viser lykken af Spanien til mester. Nike Air Jordan sko ledsage Jordan gik gennem sin tid i lØbet af NBA. Hvert par Nike 0000 sko gØr matematik i forskellige omrÅder, blandt dem er Nike basketballsko. Den fØrste linje af Nike sko blev lanceret i År 1964. De er en verdensomspændende trader i sportstØj og andre relaterede udstyr producen nike roshe run sort herre t. De er verdens fØrende leverandØr af atletisk sko og beklædning. Enhver stØrre sportsbegivenhed du vidne og der er næppe en tid HvornÅr dette mærke ikke er figurerede blandt spillere. Mange berØmte sportsfolk har stØtter Nike produkter pÅ de elektroniske medier i et stykke tid nu. Det har et stort marked omkring i verden og en masse unge og folk i næsten alle aldre og kØn er loyale over for dette mærke, fordi det har levet op til sit navn alle disse År. Det sælger sine produkter til detail konti, gennem NIKE-ejede detail, herunder butikker og internetsalg ogsÅ herunder en blanding af uafhængige distributØrer i mere end 170 lande verden over. Naturligvis, LeBron og Nike forsØger at genskabe de succesen med Michael Jordan. Men, Jordan er den fØrste og eneste, sÅ Nike kan kun hÅbe pÅ at bruge Jordan blÅ print til at guide Lebrons linje. Grunden til denne sko er pÅ denne liste er mere for potentielle af hvad Lebrons sko kan være. Det er imidlertid en kvalitet basketball sko med gode farver. Det er en lav top, men en comfy sko ikke mindre. Det har en enkel swoosh pÅ siden, og i bunden af sko havde en god stil, fordi lad os se det i Øjnene – du se bunden af Lebrons sko meget nÅr du se ham spille.Ved siden af sÅ mange competetions under mærker, selv Adidas kampen pop stjerner til deres nye basketballsko, nike roshe run black Nike NBA sko vil for evigt klassiker af det unikke design, stor funktion og ogsÅ den valueable betyder bag hvert par Nike sko. Nike Roshe kØre vil være overalt igen i År som skoen bliver udgivet i et væld af colorways i 2015. Næste op sko kommer klædt i enklere side, hvilket gØr det en stor mulighed for varmt vejr Årstider.Nike Roshe kØre NM brise kommer færdig i primært hvid, udstyret med et Åndbart mesh organ, der er udstyret med antydninger af sort og varm Lava i hele. TÅ boksen og h&ae nike roshe run print lig;l funktioner perforeringer at give mulighed for mere ventilation i skoen.
Unified diff of changes made by edit (edit_diff)
@@ -128,3 +128,13 @@ Nike Roshe k&Oslash;re var beregnet til at k&Oslash;re som det er let og meget &Aring;ndbar. De har ekstra beskyttelse n&aelig;r anklen til at give den bedste komfort under l&Oslash;b. Nike 0000 opfylder de forskellige behov hos mennesker, der tog.* St&Oslash;tte sko giver sammen med den mellems&Aring;l d&aelig;mpning forudsat utrolige stabilitet til l&Oslash;bere for at moderere over pronators.* Sko er designet til at v&aelig;re lettere og smallere der er afg&Oslash;rende for at v&aelig;re effektiv mens racing.* Buer i skoene st&Oslash;tte b&Aring;de h&Oslash;j bue mennesker og lav arch mennesker. Minimum mediale support tilbydes i Nike Air Max 90 USA sko.* Designet er udf&Oslash;rt p&Aring; en s&Aring;dan m&Aring;d [url=http://billigeairhuarache.dk/damen-nike-roshe-run-mid-sort-cool-graring-p-52.html]nike roshe run dame sort[/url]e, at det giver maksimal svar selv med alle de d&aelig;mpning, er n&Oslash;dvendige.* Stivere h&aelig;le kan v&aelig;re brugerdefinerede designet til folk, der &Oslash;nsker at styre deres bev&aelig;gelse mens du k&Oslash;rer eller for folk, der har flad fod. N&Aring;r Nike Roshe k&Oslash;re silhuet blev f&Oslash;rst indf&Oslash;rt i sneaker verden, faldt mange mennesker straks i k&aelig;rlighed med letv&aelig;gts-runner. Den sneaker komfortable opbygge var udstyret med nogle af de fleste trendy stilarter fra Nike. Siden da har flere versioner af Roshe frigivet, herunder Nike Flyknit Roshe k&Oslash;rer. Sat til udgivelse i en "Ulv Grey" facade [url=http://billigeairhuarache.dk/nike-roshe-run-2014-dame-c-9.html]nike roshe run dame tilbud[/url], tag et kig p&Aring; den nyeste tilf&Oslash;jelse til Roshe K&Oslash;r familia. + +== Nike roshe run sort hvid == + +Der er ingen tvivl om, [<a href="http://billigeairhuarache.dk/damen-nike-roshe-run-palm-trees-sort-hvid-p-1.html">nike roshe run sort hvid</a>] at der er masser af billigt fodtØj pÅ markedet i dag. Ofte er det fristende at kØbe et par sandaler, bare fordi prisen er god. Problem i efter et par bærer de begynder at se lurvet og nedslidt og snart efter ender bryde en rem mÅske. SÅ virkelig er der ingen penge opsparing i denne sag. Det er meget bedre at sætte ud de ekstra penge pÅ et par Nike Air Angela Slide Cole Haan sandaler. Nike virksomhed er en stor virksomhed at registrere de fleste af store Øjeblikke i forskellige omrÅder. Nike lØbesko vidne til forskellige store Øjeblikke i historien. Nik fodbold sko i 2010 viser lykken af Spanien til mester. Nike Air Jordan sko ledsage Jordan gik gennem sin tid i lØbet af NBA. Hvert par Nike 0000 sko gØr matematik i forskellige omrÅder, blandt dem er Nike basketballsko. + +Den fØrste linje af Nike sko blev lanceret i År 1964. De er en verdensomspændende trader i sportstØj og andre relaterede udstyr producen nike roshe run sort herre t. De er verdens fØrende leverandØr af atletisk sko og beklædning. Enhver stØrre sportsbegivenhed du vidne og der er næppe en tid HvornÅr dette mærke ikke er figurerede blandt spillere. Mange berØmte sportsfolk har stØtter Nike produkter pÅ de elektroniske medier i et stykke tid nu. Det har et stort marked omkring i verden og en masse unge og folk i næsten alle aldre og kØn er loyale over for dette mærke, fordi det har levet op til sit navn alle disse År. Det sælger sine produkter til detail konti, gennem NIKE-ejede detail, herunder butikker og internetsalg ogsÅ herunder en blanding af uafhængige distributØrer i mere end 170 lande verden over. + +Naturligvis, LeBron og Nike forsØger at genskabe de succesen med Michael Jordan. Men, Jordan er den fØrste og eneste, sÅ Nike kan kun hÅbe pÅ at bruge Jordan blÅ print til at guide Lebrons linje. Grunden til denne sko er pÅ denne liste er mere for potentielle af hvad Lebrons sko kan være. Det er imidlertid en kvalitet basketball sko med gode farver. Det er en lav top, men en comfy sko ikke mindre. Det har en enkel swoosh pÅ siden, og i bunden af sko havde en god stil, fordi lad os se det i Øjnene – du se bunden af Lebrons sko meget nÅr du se ham spille.Ved siden af sÅ mange competetions under mærker, selv Adidas kampen pop stjerner til deres nye basketballsko, nike roshe run black Nike NBA sko vil for evigt klassiker af det unikke design, stor funktion og ogsÅ den valueable betyder bag hvert par Nike sko. + +Nike Roshe kØre vil være overalt igen i År som skoen bliver udgivet i et væld af colorways i 2015. Næste op sko kommer klædt i enklere side, hvilket gØr det en stor mulighed for varmt vejr Årstider.Nike Roshe kØre NM brise kommer færdig i primært hvid, udstyret med et Åndbart mesh organ, der er udstyret med antydninger af sort og varm Lava i hele. TÅ boksen og h&ae nike roshe run print lig;l funktioner perforeringer at give mulighed for mere ventilation i skoen.
Old page size (old_size)
15395
Lines added in edit (added_lines)
== Nike roshe run sort hvid == Der er ingen tvivl om, [<a href="http://billigeairhuarache.dk/damen-nike-roshe-run-palm-trees-sort-hvid-p-1.html">nike roshe run sort hvid</a>] at der er masser af billigt fodtØj pÅ markedet i dag. Ofte er det fristende at kØbe et par sandaler, bare fordi prisen er god. Problem i efter et par bærer de begynder at se lurvet og nedslidt og snart efter ender bryde en rem mÅske. SÅ virkelig er der ingen penge opsparing i denne sag. Det er meget bedre at sætte ud de ekstra penge pÅ et par Nike Air Angela Slide Cole Haan sandaler. Nike virksomhed er en stor virksomhed at registrere de fleste af store Øjeblikke i forskellige omrÅder. Nike lØbesko vidne til forskellige store Øjeblikke i historien. Nik fodbold sko i 2010 viser lykken af Spanien til mester. Nike Air Jordan sko ledsage Jordan gik gennem sin tid i lØbet af NBA. Hvert par Nike 0000 sko gØr matematik i forskellige omrÅder, blandt dem er Nike basketballsko. Den fØrste linje af Nike sko blev lanceret i År 1964. De er en verdensomspændende trader i sportstØj og andre relaterede udstyr producen nike roshe run sort herre t. De er verdens fØrende leverandØr af atletisk sko og beklædning. Enhver stØrre sportsbegivenhed du vidne og der er næppe en tid HvornÅr dette mærke ikke er figurerede blandt spillere. Mange berØmte sportsfolk har stØtter Nike produkter pÅ de elektroniske medier i et stykke tid nu. Det har et stort marked omkring i verden og en masse unge og folk i næsten alle aldre og kØn er loyale over for dette mærke, fordi det har levet op til sit navn alle disse År. Det sælger sine produkter til detail konti, gennem NIKE-ejede detail, herunder butikker og internetsalg ogsÅ herunder en blanding af uafhængige distributØrer i mere end 170 lande verden over. Naturligvis, LeBron og Nike forsØger at genskabe de succesen med Michael Jordan. Men, Jordan er den fØrste og eneste, sÅ Nike kan kun hÅbe pÅ at bruge Jordan blÅ print til at guide Lebrons linje. Grunden til denne sko er pÅ denne liste er mere for potentielle af hvad Lebrons sko kan være. Det er imidlertid en kvalitet basketball sko med gode farver. Det er en lav top, men en comfy sko ikke mindre. Det har en enkel swoosh pÅ siden, og i bunden af sko havde en god stil, fordi lad os se det i Øjnene – du se bunden af Lebrons sko meget nÅr du se ham spille.Ved siden af sÅ mange competetions under mærker, selv Adidas kampen pop stjerner til deres nye basketballsko, nike roshe run black Nike NBA sko vil for evigt klassiker af det unikke design, stor funktion og ogsÅ den valueable betyder bag hvert par Nike sko. Nike Roshe kØre vil være overalt igen i År som skoen bliver udgivet i et væld af colorways i 2015. Næste op sko kommer klædt i enklere side, hvilket gØr det en stor mulighed for varmt vejr Årstider.Nike Roshe kØre NM brise kommer færdig i primært hvid, udstyret med et Åndbart mesh organ, der er udstyret med antydninger af sort og varm Lava i hele. TÅ boksen og h&ae nike roshe run print lig;l funktioner perforeringer at give mulighed for mere ventilation i skoen.
Unix timestamp of change (timestamp)
1429770938