User talk:AD/LW

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Two things[edit]

First: Aaaaaargh!

Second: Copyright: The LessWrong wiki is under the GFDL, RW is under CC-BY-SA, and the two are incompatible.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It was my impression that a page-specific warning, as on many essay pages, suffices to override the general copyright terms of RW. Is that not the case?--ADtalkModerator 08:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
RationalWiki may include material which is not original content, and this does not necessarily fall under the CC-BY-SA. Unless released by the author(s), such material falls under the terms under which it was released by the original authors. Under these circumstances, the use of the material on RationalWiki is per allowance in the original license

Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good. This would be easier if LW used CC-BY-SA, and hadn't just kept the default license of Wikia, but this does appear to mean I am right: with correct acknowledgement of GFDL on the page, it will meet all GFDL requirements. I think, anyway.--ADtalkModerator 10:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Not really... But that's mostly because GFDL is an atrocious turdstain, rather than any fault of ours. I would seriously just claim "fair use" for the moment and hope LessWrong doesn't care. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 10:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hm. So the requirement that is in the way is the necessity for the full license to be attached? It can just go in a collapsible box at the top-right of the article.
I mean, it doesn't make any sense that RW, which explicitly provides for alternate licensing of different pages, can't display a selection of text that explicitly provides methods by which it can be legally displayed. As near as I can tell, GFDL just demands that the full license be attached after the title, which can be met easily enough with the magic of wiki-boxes. Is there something I'm missing in this frustrating labyrinth of poorly-conceived legalese that is this license?--ADtalkModerator 10:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh hey there's already a template!--ADtalkModerator 10:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Deconstructing LW[edit]

I didn't think it could be done any more than it has. Congratulations, sir. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Work in progress still, but thanks!--ADtalkModerator 00:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)