Difference between revisions of "Talk:Frequently Asked Questions"
(Energía Eólica de Potencia: Central Eólica con Acumulación de Energía por Pesos y Producción de Electricidad por Gravedad de 20 MW) |
(Intact, but not in tact) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | == 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 == | == Headline text == | ||
Energía Eólica de Potencia: "Central Eólica con Acumulación de Energía por Pesos y Generación de Electricidad por Gravedad de 20 MW" | Energía Eólica de Potencia: "Central Eólica con Acumulación de Energía por Pesos y Generación de Electricidad por Gravedad de 20 MW" | ||
Revision as of 13:00, 24 September 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)?
