Difference between revisions of "Talk:Case Studies/Flickr"
(→Flickr only supports 2.0 licenses: new section) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I'm curious as to why [[User:Akozak]] gave this case study an initial C-class rating, as even before I added some info, it seemed to be B-class. Is it because a lot of the info was outdated? Would it qualify as A-class now? | I'm curious as to why [[User:Akozak]] gave this case study an initial C-class rating, as even before I added some info, it seemed to be B-class. Is it because a lot of the info was outdated? Would it qualify as A-class now? | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Flickr only supports 2.0 licenses == | ||
| + | |||
| + | This article says "Users can choose to release their work under any of the available Creative Commons licenses." | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is not true. Flickr only lets you choose version 2.0 licenses. Strange, since the license pages Flickr links to states that the new versions should be used for new works. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Dubidubno|Dubidubno]] 17:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:02, 24 January 2011
I'm curious as to why User:Akozak gave this case study an initial C-class rating, as even before I added some info, it seemed to be B-class. Is it because a lot of the info was outdated? Would it qualify as A-class now?
Flickr only supports 2.0 licenses
This article says "Users can choose to release their work under any of the available Creative Commons licenses."
This is not true. Flickr only lets you choose version 2.0 licenses. Strange, since the license pages Flickr links to states that the new versions should be used for new works.
Dubidubno 17:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
