Difference between revisions of "Talk:Frequently Asked Questions"
(Intact, but not in tact) |
(→wording: new section) |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
: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)? | :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)? | ||
+ | |||
+ | == wording == | ||
+ | |||
+ | "and asks permission to do (or not do) something the license says she must do (or not do)" | ||
+ | |||
+ | should be | ||
+ | |||
+ | "and asks permission to do (or not do) something the license says she must not do (or do)" |
Revision as of 18:19, 27 October 2009
Intact, but not in tact
In the section "How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?" the phrase "in tact" is used twice when what is meant is "intact". While amusing, it's not appropriate.
Great work! -TGrip
Headline text
Energía Eólica de Potencia: "Central Eólica con Acumulación de Energía por Pesos y Generación de Electricidad por Gravedad de 20 MW"
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.
- 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)?
wording
"and asks permission to do (or not do) something the license says she must do (or not do)"
should be
"and asks permission to do (or not do) something the license says she must not do (or do)"