From Rachel's Láadan Reader by Rachel Wil Sha Singh.

https://moosader.itch.io/rachels-laadan-reader

License: CC-BY 4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

I'm not able to find any such blog post, nor am I able to find anything anywhere stating that CC-BY 4.0 isn't compatible with CC-BY 2.0. @TRANG ?

https://blog.tatoeba.org/search?q=cc-by

Yeah that says nothing of the sort. Perhaps you're confusing CC-BY 4.0 with other CC licenses? Please don't turn sentences red on a whim like that, and please unredden it.

All the posts you linked me to are saying is that a sentence *has* to be compatible with CC-BY. And this is, as I already said, licensed under CC-BY.

This sentence is still erroneously marked red despite the fact that @CK was here four hours ago; could a competent and capable administrator remove the marking?

I have set the status of the sentence back to normal.

I also don't see why it would be a problem to include CC BY 4.0 content into our CC BY 2.0 FR corpus.

Thank you.

Thanks @Thanuir :)

@shekitten, could you take a moment to update all your other comments for the Láadan sentences and simply replace:
License: CC-BY 4.0.
by:
License: CC-BY 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
or maybe even just:
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

I think Thanuir's recommendation to include the link is quite reasonable. It's indeed not that much additional work.

Cf. https://tatoeba.org/eng/wall/sh...#message_33153