On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 20, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Jean-Vincent Drean wrote:
3) License ----------------
* Current : This wiki is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/">Creative Commons</a> license * Proposal : This wiki is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">Creative Commons</a> license
+1 but maybe we should say "Creative Commons v3.0" or use this instead: http://tinyurl.com/5jwj8p BTW I've used http://creativecommons.org/license/ to pick the license and it says v2.0 in the end... any idea why is that?
As Artem stated is likely because of the jurisdiction you've picked. I guess it's safer to use the v2.0 for now. +1 to make visible the version of the license.
4) Version ----------------
What is this version? If it's meant to override the version.properties file then I'd be +1 to remove this field altogether since I don't think people should change it easily.
I was going to remove the field when I thought that people may like to be able to customize this line easily (to put a product name for example) or to put some words about their wiki instead of the xwiki version there.
* Current : empty, actually it's not even taken into account if filled * Proposal : XWiki $xwiki.getVersion() - <a onclick="openURL('http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Documentation' , '_blank'); return false;" href="http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/ Documentation">Documentation</a>
1) I don't think it's XWiki's version since XWiki doesn't mean much. It should be the product version.
Right, it would be XWiki Enterprise $xwiki.version for XE for example.
2) I'm not sure about putting Documentation. I think I'd prefer putting a link to http://xwiki.org with the text "XWiki.org".
Not sure about this one. -- Jean-Vincent Drean