| Time |
S |
Nick |
Message |
| 01:16 |
|
|
Util joined #rosettacode |
| 01:50 |
|
|
mwn3d_phone joined #rosettacode |
| 03:08 |
|
mwn3d_phone |
Site is slow tonight on my computer |
| 03:09 |
|
mwn3d_phone |
Seems ok on my phone |
| 03:09 |
|
mwn3d_phone |
And that's on the same network |
| 03:18 |
|
|
BenBE joined #rosettacode |
| 04:37 |
|
|
kpreid joined #rosettacode |
| 04:37 |
|
|
eMBee joined #rosettacode |
| 04:37 |
|
|
mbishop joined #rosettacode |
| 04:43 |
|
|
eel2 joined #rosettacode |
| 11:45 |
|
|
mwn3d_phone1 joined #rosettacode |
| 13:17 |
|
|
dagnyscott joined #rosettacode |
| 13:34 |
|
eMBee |
any chance the licence on the site can be changed to fdl 1.3? |
| 13:37 |
|
eMBee |
hmm, never mind, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html contains a provision to relicense to creative comons, but that provision was only valid until 2009 |
| 13:37 |
|
fedaykin |
"GNU Free Documentation License v1.3 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)" |
| 13:54 |
|
Hypftier |
makes me wonder why the time frame is included in the license. What's so utterly wrong in relicensing a site after 2009? Does the need suddenly go away magically? Is that just another trick to force projects to retain a semi-harmful license for eternity just because they missed a certain deadline? Or was that just a one-time provision for Wikipedia and other sites who happened to make the switch in time? |
| 13:56 |
|
|
mikemol joined #rosettacode |
| 13:59 |
|
|
kpreid joined #rosettacode |
| 14:05 |
|
eMBee |
the relicencing provision was done specifically to allow wikipedia and similar sites to relicense all their content. but i agree, it would be nicer without the timelimit |
| 14:26 |
|
eMBee |
i am asking someone to let me publish his code from his blog on rosettacode. he already stated that he is happy to let me copy the code. is it enough if he makes the statement to me privately? can i just quote him from my private email? |
| 14:28 |
|
mikemol |
Yeah, I missed the window on the relicensing. I was working 50-70hrs per week. |
| 14:29 |
|
mikemol |
eMBee: Put a cite with the lump of code. |
| 14:32 |
|
eMBee |
does the cite need to have a link? (if i link to the blog it will say gpl) |
| 14:33 |
|
mikemol |
Yes. |
| 14:33 |
|
eMBee |
then private email is not enough. ok, i'll ask, thanks |
| 14:36 |
|
eMBee |
but if he uploads the code himself, a cite would not be needed, just a statement that he is the author? could he do that without logging in? |
| 14:37 |
|
eMBee |
since it is me asking for a favor i don't want to cause him to much trouble for something he wrote years ago |
| 14:42 |
|
mikemol |
One advantage to the link cite is that some of the folks on RC don't care to see it. Since I don't have a problem with it, the usual resolution is to leave it there until someone clean-rooms a task solution. Otherwise, it shouldn't be a problem. |
| 14:42 |
|
mikemol |
As for anonymous edits involving verbatim copying...those usually get jumped on, because it's impossible to clearly identify who made them. |
| 14:43 |
|
eMBee |
ok, i see |
| 14:43 |
|
mikemol |
What's the URL to the blog post in question? |
| 14:43 |
|
eMBee |
http://jfkbits.blogspot.com/ |
| 14:43 |
|
fedaykin |
"JFKBits" |
| 14:43 |
|
eMBee |
the GPL statement there was added today |
| 14:44 |
|
eMBee |
initially there was nothing, then i asked and he added CC BY |
| 14:44 |
|
eMBee |
then we found that it is not clear that that is GPL compatible, so he changed to GPL, now i have to ask him again |
| 14:45 |
|
eMBee |
but initially he said he is happy to let me publish his code on RC |
| 14:45 |
|
mikemol |
As long as you can produce that email, and he doesn't dispute it, I don't care. If he complains that the code is on RC, then the code gets taken down anyway, as that amounts to a rescindence of license. |
| 14:45 |
|
eMBee |
in the same email where he offered CC BY |
| 14:46 |
|
mikemol |
Copying the code and using a linkcite should honestly be just fine. |
| 14:46 |
|
eMBee |
ok, thank you |
| 14:47 |
|
mikemol |
Also, afaik, CC-By code can be dropped into GPL systems. CC-By-SA can't be. |
| 14:47 |
|
mikemol |
GPL code can't be dropped into CC-By codebases without the CC-By being pushed to GPL, though. |
| 14:47 |
|
mikemol |
IANAL, I just have to think about these things a lot. :) |
| 14:49 |
|
eMBee |
yes, cc by would have been fine i am almost sure, but i could not find anyone making a clear statement to that point |
| 14:56 |
|
|
kpreid joined #rosettacode |
| 14:59 |
|
|
slavik2 joined #rosettacode |
| 16:51 |
|
|
kpreid joined #rosettacode |
| 17:17 |
|
|
GlitchMr joined #rosettacode |
| 17:26 |
|
|
slavik1 joined #rosettacode |
| 17:37 |
|
eMBee |
crazy idea: how about opening up more licenses? each solution could be tagged with licenses that apply to it, like {{license|GPL}} |
| 17:37 |
|
GlitchMr |
These languages lack syntax highlighting. |
| 17:37 |
|
GlitchMr |
* Logo |
| 17:37 |
|
GlitchMr |
And I remember how I did some syntax highlighter of Logo in GeSHi... |
| 17:37 |
|
GlitchMr |
It was in Polish, but I think that translating shouldn't be hard. |
| 17:39 |
|
Hypftier |
eMBee: Once we can have single task solutions in individual pages that might be worthwhile and might make a move to CC easier, but in the context of a single large page it gets mesasy quickly, I guess |
| 17:39 |
|
eMBee |
gee, blue prawn is fast today, i publish some scrap in my personal space and he adds a line-to-long marker :-) |
| 17:40 |
|
eMBee |
why? the tag would be per language example |
| 17:40 |
|
GlitchMr |
But then, implementations are extremally different |
| 17:40 |
|
eMBee |
anyways: need to go to sleep |
| 18:37 |
|
|
slavik1 joined #rosettacode |
| 18:55 |
|
|
kpreid_ joined #rosettacode |
| 19:00 |
|
|
kpreid joined #rosettacode |
| 19:05 |
|
|
slavik1 joined #rosettacode |
| 19:32 |
|
mikemol |
http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Ro[…]a_Code:Copyrights |
| 19:33 |
|
fedaykin |
"Rosetta Code:Copyrights - Rosetta Code" http://rldn.net/2s2 |
| 19:33 |
|
mikemol |
Worth a read, for those who haven't. |
| 19:33 |
|
mikemol |
Interesting subsets: the Citations section, and the final line of the Contributors section. |
| 19:35 |
|
mikemol |
In reality, though, multilicensing an *edit* (which is what some people on RC are technically doing) is not substantive in the long term; others who modify the page later on likely only licensed their modification under the GFDL 1.2. |
| 19:57 |
|
|
kpreid joined #rosettacode |
| 21:14 |
|
|
AlexLehm joined #rosettacode |
| 21:18 |
|
eel2 |
REPL log monitoring broke! problem: <EOFException> |
| 21:32 |
|
mwn3d_phone |
Come on REPL log monitoring. You can't stay unbroken for a day? |
| 21:40 |
|
|
mwn3d_phone1 joined #rosettacode |
| 21:57 |
|
AlexLehm |
can i just remove an output? marker after I added an output section to an example? |
| 22:14 |
|
|
mwn3d_phone joined #rosettacode |
| 22:43 |
|
|
kpreid joined #rosettacode |
| 22:58 |
|
mikemol |
AlexLehm: Sure |
| 22:59 |
|
mikemol |
It's not like we need you to drop a template asking for a review to authorize instigating a mechanism to review whether or not a template may be reviewed. |
| 23:00 |
|
mikemol |
This may be discussed in the article's [[Talk:Article|Talk page]] |
| 23:00 |
|
fedaykin |
http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Talk:Article|Talk_page |
| 23:00 |
|
mikemol |
We're actually very unprocessed. |
| 23:02 |
|
AlexLehm |
ok, i removed the entry |
| 23:06 |
|
AlexLehm |
on a sidenote: has anybody used Dart VM yet? I don't know how to actually run anything with this |
| 23:15 |
|
AlexLehm |
ah found it |
