Talk:Free knowledge based on Creative Commons licenses

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The English version has been published as:

The German version:

The Dutch version:

The French version:

Outdated text[edit]

Short version: I'm an idiot but all should be ok, please forgive me.
Detailed version: la gatta frettolosa fa i gattini ciechi, but I was hasty nonetheless and I created the first version of this page with the first edition of the brochure, thinking "why waste time asking?"; seeing all your fantastic quick translation work I thought I was right; then Mathias Schindler kindly sent me the up to date version; no problem, I thought, I'm smart enough to fix it!... and in a hour it was done; however turns out I wasn't smarter than the others, and I was bitten by a critical bug that hid all the translations from view ("invalidated" them); now, after a couple hours of battles with some other bugs, all the translations should be ok again. --Nemo 20:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Original title[edit]

Original title (see image of book cover):

Free knowledge thanks to Creative Commons licenses: by Paul Klimpel. Why a non-commercial clause often won't serve your needs.

Used title (see page 21 of these same book):

Free knowledge based on Creative Commons licenses: Consequences, risks and side-effects of the license module "non-commercial use only – NC".

Why used second phrase? Why first phrase was not included into translatable version? --Kaganer (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it was the version available at the time. --Nemo 20:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand. See file upload history for File:Free_Knowledge_based_on_Creative_Commons_Licenses.pdf - old version included "based on", currrent version (commented as "Updated version from Mathias Schindler") - "thanks to".--Kaganer (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. The new version of the file was uploaded after the creation of this page. --Nemo 10:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Why don't used last version? --Kaganer (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Number of pages[edit]

Is this version with 22 pages the correct one? Print versions usually should be 20 or 24 pages (due to folding). Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the definition of "correct": it's surely right because WMDE provided it, but it may not be the actual print version. --Nemo 09:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
True. I would be very happy if the printed version also were available. And a mention that this is a screen version only, and not usable for print would also be helpful. --Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Well I've not tried, maybe it's vector so hi resolution enough and maybe there's some special convenient format for 22 pages too (seems to be A5). Better ask Mathias Schindler. --Nemo 10:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unclear. I have a printed version from WMDE in my hand, it is 24 pages. It does not match this pdf. What differs is that after section 19 there is a page with section 20, and one with About the author, bringing it up to 24 pages. Also from this pdf the text from the cover, page 2 with CC-licenses, the text on the picture page 7, the imprint, and the back cover is missing in the translation. Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuit on definition of "non-commercial"[edit]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160902/00165835421/creative-commons-wants-to-step-into-lawsuit-over-definition-noncommercial-cc-license.shtml --Nemo 18:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)