Re: [RFR] templates://dokuwiki/{templates}
Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
> Esko Arajärvi, 2011-02-24 23:02 UTC+0200:
>> that you provide full names as options. I think it is possible to do this and
>> still get the current values in return. If I'm not mistaken, the
>> following does that. This way users do not have to decode what the acronyms mean.
(Or rather, they don't need to know which code maps to which full name)
Yes, let's see what my version looks like with this approach. Should
the options be fully expanded, including CC→Creative Commons? I'll
try it with that only explained once in the text (after all, I don't
bother expanding GNU...)
>> __Choices: CC0, CC Attribution, […]
(this had a couple of typos)
>> Choices-C: cc-zero, cc-by, […]
>
> Nice! I shall test it, but does someone know for sure if this is really
> supported?
I think it's new since I started reviewing things on this list, but
that's a while now! It crops up quite often these days as a way of
simplifying translations - most recently for tgif last month. But do
we want translators to translate the names? Some of the
non-anglophone wikipedias retain the English forms as if they were
canonical... oh well, I'll let debian-i18n-legal worry about that.
> It does make sense, and if it works then it is /the solution/
> to a Choices problem I faced several times: if I put full text in the
> Choices then it is painful to parse, and unstable over text corrections
> such as capitalization. I shall then prepare patches against po-debconf
> manpage to document this. :-)
>
>> You also assume users know what term copyleft-based means and what is
>> difference between free and non-free licence. Maybe Linux system admins
>> more often know, but please consider if these terms could be opened more
>> to the user. I didn't change anything concerning these yet as I don't
>> maybe remember all the implications of these terms to make informed
>> suggestions for enhancements.
>
> Would this suit?
> […] are copyleft-based free licenses, that require modifications to
> be released under the same terms.
I've crammed in the tersest explanations of "copyleft" and "non-free"
that I could come up with. Oh, and I'll change a "you want" to a
"should" just in case the sysadmin's unwillingly following policy.
Template: dokuwiki/wiki/license
Type: select
__Choices: CC No Rights Reserved, CC Attribution, CC Attribution-ShareAlike, GNU Free Documentation License, CC Attribution-NonCommercial, CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
Choices-C: cc-zero, cc-by, cc-by-sa, gnufdl, cc-by-nc, cc-by-nc-sa
Default: cc-by-sa
_Description: Wiki license:
Please choose the license that should apply to your wiki content.
.
The Creative Commons "No Rights Reserved" licence is designed to
waive as many rights as legally possible.
.
CC Attribution is a permissive license that only requires licensees
to give credit to the author.
.
CC Attribution-ShareAlike and the GNU FDL are copyleft-based free
licenses (requiring modifications to be released under similar terms).
.
CC Attribution-NonCommercial and Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
are non-free licenses, in that they forbid commercial use.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: