Search results

== Is it still GFDL? == ...e from [[Wikichristian:Copyrights]], the contents used to be/are under the GFDL. Is this still true? GBY! [[User:Denise|Denise]] 05:39, 14 January 2007 (ES

[http://en.orthodoxwiki.org/Category:GFDL_Images Category:GFDL Images - OrthodoxWiki Commons]

:*What License does this site operate with? GFDL?

...ikichristian:Copyrights]]. I've never really noticed that we don't have a GFDL icon at the bottom of the site until you mentioned it. I'll ask one of our :I'm sorry I didn't answer your post sooner. I see you have a GFDL icon now. Funny thing is, Jesus-Wiki doesn't have one at the moment, becaus

*[http://en.orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page OrthodoxWiki Main Page] - GFDL and Creative Commons.

...emplated by the original authors of these WikiChristian articles under the GFDL licensing scheme. Unless otherwise stated WikiChristian is neither endorsed

...say WikiChristian,Reformed Word, Orthodox Wiki aren't great, when they are GFDL and CC (SA-A) respectively. Which is it? Do you mean only PD is good? Yo

...ed to Wikichristian projects is available for reuse under the terms of the GFDL, except for Wikinews, where the text is available under a Creative Commons

...r:Athrash|Athrash]] uploaded "[[:Image:Apt.jpg|Apt.jpg]]" <em>(&#123;&#123;GFDL-self}} My initials from an ancient Greek papyrus)</em></li>

...ain, there are no conflicts with any TOS, or that it is released under the GFDL :-) --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Tom]] 08:40, 29 July 2006 (PDT) ..., but not required, right?</del> EDIT: Scratch that. I just read up on the GFDL a little more; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedi