On Tuesday 23 January 2007 01:08, Nathan Hawks wrote:
> CC = Creative Commons. It's one of the leading research- and sharing-
> friendly copylefts for text, music, and art.

I got that you were talking about Creative Commons, but given that they have
half a dozen different licenses, I thought you were talking about a
particular one, and none of them is called "copyleft".

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

The British version features London, rather than Atlantic City, and has far
more interesting placenames.

> 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

--
512k Broadband £14.99 per month
Unlimited Downloads - No extra Costs
£14.99 per month (inc. VAT)
Order Now www.adsl4less.com