Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

Talk:Frequently Asked Questions

2009-06-06T06:53:12Z

70.8.53.248: /* Anyone can discuss the FAQ here */

== Anyone can discuss the FAQ here ==

Although the article is only editable by admins.

At the end of the first question a sentence containing questionable grammar appears. <--The html code will also be include the metadata that enables your work to found via Creative Commons-enabled search engines. --> I understand the intent of the answer but the poor grammar may be confusing to non-native English speakers - and irritating to native English speakers. (Hint: cut the 'be' from before 'include' and paste it before 'found via'.

Thanks - DRC
----------------

In the response to the question: "I used part of a Creative Commons-licensed work, which Creative Commons license can I relicense my work under?"

The second paragraph contains the sentence: "Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NoDerivatives license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NoDerivatives license or an Attribution-NonCommercial license."

It would make more sense to me if that sentence were replaced with: "Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NoDerivatives license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NoDerivatives license or an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license."

In the first two questions ("how to apply a license"), could you add a link to [[License_HTML_Code]], as that information seems to be missing from this site and from creativecommons.org? (If it's not missing, then providing a link to it would be helpful.) The [[License_HTML_Code]] information is targeted more at web developers than software developers, but it should still be available somewhere, and this seems like a good spot.

Talk:Frequently Asked Questions

2009-06-06T06:50:54Z

70.8.53.248: /* Anyone can discuss the FAQ here */

== Anyone can discuss the FAQ here ==

Although the article is only editable by admins.

At the end of the first question a sentence containing questionable grammar appears. <--The html code will also be include the metadata that enables your work to found via Creative Commons-enabled search engines. --> I understand the intent of the answer but the poor grammar may be confusing to non-native English speakers - and irritating to native English speakers. (Hint: cut the 'be' before 'include' and paste it before 'found via'.

Thanks - DRC
----------------

In the response to the question: "I used part of a Creative Commons-licensed work, which Creative Commons license can I relicense my work under?"

The second paragraph contains the sentence: "Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NoDerivatives license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NoDerivatives license or an Attribution-NonCommercial license."

It would make more sense to me if that sentence were replaced with: "Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NoDerivatives license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NoDerivatives license or an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license."

In the first two questions ("how to apply a license"), could you add a link to [[License_HTML_Code]], as that information seems to be missing from this site and from creativecommons.org? (If it's not missing, then providing a link to it would be helpful.) The [[License_HTML_Code]] information is targeted more at web developers than software developers, but it should still be available somewhere, and this seems like a good spot.

Talk:Frequently Asked Questions

2009-06-06T06:48:22Z

70.8.53.248: /* Anyone can discuss the FAQ here */

== Anyone can discuss the FAQ here ==

Although the article is only editable by admins.

At the end of the first question a sentence containing questionable grammar appears. <--The html code will also be include the metadata that enables your work to found via Creative Commons-enabled search engines. --> I understand the intent of the answer but the poor grammar may be confusing to non-native English speakers - and irritating to native English speakers.

Thanks - DRC
----------------

In the response to the question: "I used part of a Creative Commons-licensed work, which Creative Commons license can I relicense my work under?"

The second paragraph contains the sentence: "Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NoDerivatives license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NoDerivatives license or an Attribution-NonCommercial license."

It would make more sense to me if that sentence were replaced with: "Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NoDerivatives license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NoDerivatives license or an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license."

In the first two questions ("how to apply a license"), could you add a link to [[License_HTML_Code]], as that information seems to be missing from this site and from creativecommons.org? (If it's not missing, then providing a link to it would be helpful.) The [[License_HTML_Code]] information is targeted more at web developers than software developers, but it should still be available somewhere, and this seems like a good spot.

Talk:Frequently Asked Questions

2009-06-06T06:47:43Z

70.8.53.248: /* Anyone can discuss the FAQ here */

== Anyone can discuss the FAQ here ==

Although the article is only editable by admins.

At the end of the first question a sentence containing questionable grammar appears. <--The html code will also be include the metadata that enables your work to found via Creative Commons-enabled search engines. --> I understand the intent of the answer but the poor grammar may be confusing to non-native English speakers - and irritating to native English speakers.

----------------

In the response to the question: "I used part of a Creative Commons-licensed work, which Creative Commons license can I relicense my work under?"

The second paragraph contains the sentence: "Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NoDerivatives license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NoDerivatives license or an Attribution-NonCommercial license."

It would make more sense to me if that sentence were replaced with: "Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NoDerivatives license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NoDerivatives license or an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license."

In the first two questions ("how to apply a license"), could you add a link to [[License_HTML_Code]], as that information seems to be missing from this site and from creativecommons.org? (If it's not missing, then providing a link to it would be helpful.) The [[License_HTML_Code]] information is targeted more at web developers than software developers, but it should still be available somewhere, and this seems like a good spot.

Talk:Frequently Asked Questions

2009-06-06T06:47:00Z

70.8.53.248: u

== Anyone can discuss the FAQ here ==

Although the article is only editable by admins.

At the end of the first question a sentence containing questionable grammar appears. <--The html code will also be include the metadata that enables your work to found via Creative Commons-enabled search engines. --> I understand the intent of the answer but the poor grammar may be confusing to non-native English speakers - and irritating to native English speakers.

In the response to the question: "I used part of a Creative Commons-licensed work, which Creative Commons license can I relicense my work under?"

The second paragraph contains the sentence: "Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NoDerivatives license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NoDerivatives license or an Attribution-NonCommercial license."

It would make more sense to me if that sentence were replaced with: "Thus, for example, if you are using work issued under an Attribution-NoDerivatives license, you may be able to relicense it under either another Attribution-NoDerivatives license or an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license."

In the first two questions ("how to apply a license"), could you add a link to [[License_HTML_Code]], as that information seems to be missing from this site and from creativecommons.org? (If it's not missing, then providing a link to it would be helpful.) The [[License_HTML_Code]] information is targeted more at web developers than software developers, but it should still be available somewhere, and this seems like a good spot.