CC = Creative Commons. It's one of the leading research- and sharing-
friendly copylefts for text, music, and art.

I didn't even realize they made a British edition of Monopoly :) (Silly
insular American!)

On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 19:23 +0000, Stephen Gray wrote:
> On Monday 22 January 2007 18:39, Nathan Hawks wrote:
> > My $0.02...
> >
> > WikiMedia/ Creative Commons is just about the only publishing option
> > available unless y'all want to pursue licensing from all the sources
> > e.g. the BBC and other original creators of the stuff you're
> compiling.
>
> Yeah. Having just reread the Wikimedia license, after my last post, I
> realised
> that actually, it's not as unsuitable for print versions as I'd
> thought.
> Though it would appear that by including information from Wikipedia,
> we'd
> have to have quite a lot of names on the title page.
>
> > I think it's a great idea to publish under the CC copyleft.
>
> I'm not sure which one that is.
>
> > Is this project going to / or currently / tie in with d20? Maybe
> issue
> > a statement of purpose so the lurkers might see what they've been
> > lurking for :)
>
> If somebody is willing to do the work required to generate the stats,
> then
> definitely yes. If not, then it will still be a useful source of
> information
> for d20 players.
>
> > That'll be two cents, please :)
>
> Hm. Can I send you one pound's worth of monopoly money instead? ;)
>
> > On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 17:59 +0000, Stephen Gray wrote:
> > > On Monday 22 January 2007 12:57, Alexander Dante wrote:
> > > > --- In whoconcord@..., "bouncelot" <bouncelot@...>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > I just wanted to ask if anybody is still here, and interested
> in
> > > > > furthering this project. It appears that it's all gone pretty
> > >
> > > dead.
> > >
> > > > > Anyway, I was considering replacing the Whoniverse database
> thing
> > > >
> > > > with
> > > >
> > > > > a Wiki, as it might encourage people to take part a bit more.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any opinions? Should I set up a poll to ask the question?
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen Gray
> > > >
> > > > I'm still editing and adding entries sporadically, but I've had
> next
> > > > to no feedback from people while doing so - this group seems to
> be
> > > > more of a watch and look group than one where there is a large
> > >
> > > amount
> > >
> > > > of debate, which is a pity.
> > > >
> > > > Given that the Doctor Who Wikipedia project has a very active
> group,
> > > > turning the database into a wiki might be a duplication of
> effort.
> > >
> > > The
> > >
> > > > big difference between us and them, as I see it, is that we
> embrace
> > > > the Expanded Universe whereas they try and focus on TV canon.
> > >
> > > The other difference is that we aim to catalogue absolutely
> > > everything, and
> > > they only catalogue major parts of the series' mythos. So we would
> > > have a
> > > page for a minor character who only appears in one story, whereas
> they
> > > would
> > > only reference that character in the cast list/synopsis for that
> > > story.
> > >
> > > The idea of turning the database into a wiki isn't to change its
> > > purpose or
> > > content, but simply to make it a lot easier to entice people to
> > > contribute.
> > > It's more a change of interface than a change of style or
> substance.
> > >
> > > > It might be worth discussing this with Terence Chua/khaosworks
> who I
> > > > think leads the wiki project, to see how to link and
> > >
> > > cross-reference.
> > >
> > > > An Expanded Universe Wiki inside Whoniverse could be based on
> the
> > >
> > > work
> > >
> > > > they have already done, but be expanded on.
> > > >
> > > > Their disclaimer "the canonicity of spin-off media is uncertain"
> > >
> > > could
> > >
> > > > then be turned into an Expanded Universe link.
> > > >
> > > > AD
> > >
> > > Hm, I'd say that it's definitely worth considering. However, if
> we're
> > > still
> > > ultimately aiming to publish, then I don't think the Wikipedia
> > > copyright
> > > license would allow us to directly use Wikipedia material anyway.
> > >
> > > Stephen
>
> --
> 512k Broadband £14.99 per month
> Unlimited Downloads - No extra Costs
> £14.99 per month (inc. VAT)
> Order Now www.adsl4less.com
>
>
>
>