The Chinese could certainly use this!

Cheers!
Greg

@ Jeff: I’m not an expert on what ‘compatible license” means, so I’ll trust you on this one. The credit thing is still a problem, though.

@ Greg: Three things…

1) Maybe you’re right, and it was simply a matter of an idea that really can’t get across in many ways. However, word choice plus sentence structure are fishy to me. “Completed in” and “bring(ing) it closer” are two red flags because they are consistent style choices that reflect voice, not content.

2) You were able to construct a pair of sentences which I wouldn’t think twice about. In fact, you didn’t use those two key pieces which raised my hackles :)

Here’s my go: “Unlike ‘traditional’ cricket, Twenty20 takes only about 3.5 hours to play – similar in length to baseball, football, and other US sports.”

The point is the same, and even some of the words are the same, but I’m actually synthesizing and providing my own voice.

3) Finally, and most importantly, I never claimed that this was plagiarism. I said that they “cribbed” (e.g., cheated a little), implying that they are not playing by their own rules with regards to fair use. And now I’m saying it.

There are few ways to state the definition of Twenty20 in two sentences or less. Inevitably, any attempt will sound similar. Here, let me give it a try:

“Twenty20 is a version of cricket which takes about 3.5 hours to play. This is a similar timespan to other American sports.”

It’s pretty tricky… you could go with something like, “This shorter timespan is easier to digest for American sports fans,” but now you’re changing the meaning… You’re stating the conclusion instead of letting the reader draw that conclusion, which is different rhetoric and different meaning altogether.

It’s not plagiarism. A substantially larger selection would need to have been “rewritten” in order to make that case. 2 structurally basic sentences doesn’t cut it.

keep up the good work man…….