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 |