<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://wiki.creativecommons.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=TGrip</id>
		<title>Creative Commons - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://wiki.creativecommons.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=TGrip"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TGrip"/>
		<updated>2026-04-23T00:50:23Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.30.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Talk:Frequently_Asked_Questions&amp;diff=26819</id>
		<title>Talk:Frequently Asked Questions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Talk:Frequently_Asked_Questions&amp;diff=26819"/>
				<updated>2009-09-24T12:00:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;TGrip: Intact, but not in tact&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Intact, but not in tact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the section &amp;quot;How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?&amp;quot; the phrase &amp;quot;in tact&amp;quot; is used twice when what is meant is &amp;quot;intact&amp;quot;.  While amusing, it's not appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great work!&lt;br /&gt;
-TGrip&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Headline text ==&lt;br /&gt;
Energía Eólica de Potencia: &amp;quot;Central Eólica con Acumulación de Energía por Pesos y Generación de Electricidad por Gravedad de 20 MW&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the article is only editable by admins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the first question a sentence containing questionable grammar appears. &amp;lt;--The html code will also be include the metadata that enables your work to found via Creative Commons-enabled search engines. --&amp;gt;  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'.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks - DRC&lt;br /&gt;
----------------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the response to the question: &amp;quot;I used part of a Creative Commons-licensed work, which Creative Commons license can I relicense my work under?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second paragraph contains the sentence: &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would make more sense to me if that sentence were replaced with: &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first two questions (&amp;quot;how to apply a license&amp;quot;), 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Q: I am a webdesigner and the only solution I have found is under CC License. How can I do to use this solution in my websites (commercial)?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>TGrip</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed>