I haven't seen any of the CC licenses in any module so far and I have not seen this discussed on sword-devel. While these licenses make sense these cryptic strings do not. I think these should be openly discussed. -- DM Smith, 9/20/07
The CC license abbreviations are standard and each character pair represents a restriction placed on the text. The links go to the "deeds" associated with each license and explain the details more completely. Perseus licenses all of their stuff under the by-nc-sa license, which is itself a bit controversial since these are obviously public domain works, with few exceptions, and Perseus doesn't have any legal right to impose restrictions on use after they've done their distribution. Nevertheless, since we're not commercial, we intend to share our modifications, and giving source attribution is just being fair, I don't have a problem with complying with their license terms. Not to mention, I don't have any desire to pick a fight with Perseus since I think their work is great. -- Osk 2007-09-21
I think that we need to make the conditions of distribution clear. These cryptic strings would probably mean nothing to the majority of people seeing them. Perhaps these should be more explicit. For a possible example: "Covered by the Creative Commons License <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/">by-nc-nd</a>." -- DM 2007-09-21
How do "Creative Commons: by-nc-nd" and similar strings sound? They give someone actually looking at our metadata enough info to know to look at CC. I don't see a need for any more since the license strings are really not intended to be presented to users. -- Osk 2007-09-22
conf file: GlobalOptionFilter
The text here does not represent swmgr.cpp correctly - should it?
- UTF8HebrewPoints vs. Vowels
Eelik 11:15, 28 October 2007 (MDT)
I added OSISLemma, which was clearly missing, and fixed UTF8HebrewPoints, which was clearly wrong.
The other three are essentially module-specific and I don't know their function well enough to write a description.
In one section we say "willing to accept ThML and GBF", and in another "GBF is deprecated". Seems a little inconsistent. -- Jmmorgan 06:47, 30 September 2008 (MDT)
- I think the former statement was very old. We will accept some ThML work (on the condition that it be content from CCEL). But ThML is certainly deprecated. And there's no reason for which I would accept a GBF submission. There's simply no good reason to still be using GBF. --Osk 21:05, 30 September 2008 (MDT)