| 1 |
Chema Alonso posted on Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:21:24 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 05:41:37PM +0000, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
>> In other words, support "<license version='3.0' />" for documents that |
| 6 |
>> need to be CC-BY-SA 3.0, or for new documents. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> What's your take on this? |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> I think this is a good approach to manage the upgrade to 3.0 version. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
What about a mechanism (in-doc comments or the like) that would allow |
| 13 |
existing authors to indicate that they're OK (or not) with a future |
| 14 |
upgrade to CC-BY-SA 3.0? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If authors on existing docs were encouraged to take advantage of such a |
| 17 |
feature/policy as opportunity invited, it'd lessen the work to eventually |
| 18 |
upgrade at least some existing docs, as well, tho it wouldn't help that |
| 19 |
much for those no longer involved, who would in any case need to be |
| 20 |
contacted manually before such an update. But it would at least stop the |
| 21 |
problem from getting worse, and would incrementally ease the work |
| 22 |
necessary if someone eventually decided to actively try for an update. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 26 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 27 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives