On 1/19/07, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
On 1/18/07, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Matt R wrote:
As per the subject, excerpts from:
https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2007-January/000863.html
Larry Sanger writes,
"After seeing the widespread support for the suggestion that we try *not* forking Wikipedia--i.e., that we delete all articles
that
are not marked "CZ Live"--I am about to instruct our tech team to go
ahead
and make the deletion...
I'm a bit clueless, but does this mean they haven't used any Wikipedia content, or that they have but they're hiding it? I mean, all the articles that are marked "CZ Live", are they based on Wikipedia content? And if they are, doesn't that mean they *have* to license under GFDL? Which, unless I got confused in another thread, they aren't planning to do?
Steve block
Steve - if you poke around the Citizendium forum (there's a link to it in Matt's email) a lot of your questions may be answered.
I looked at Citizendium a while back but couldn't for the life of me work out how I was supposed to become a contributor so I gave up looking at it.
Apparently their first "approved" article, Biology, was a complete re-write
- the Wikipedia article was blanked. Other people have modified existing
articles. As I understand it, the CZ Live stuff is stuff that people are working on.
Obviously they can't release work based on WP articles under a more restrictive license. New material could be - it seems to me that there's a debate between people who want the whole project to by cc-by-nc and those who want it to stay GFDL.
I can't see how you can ringfence certain articles. If information is moved from one GFDL article to another, a cc by nc, then the new article must be both GFDL and cc by nc, no? And aren't they incompatible?
CC-by-NC isn't a copyleft license, so the compatibility would be really strange. A derivative of a GFDL article (which wasn't an aggregate) would have to be GFDL. But a derivative of a CC-by-NC article doesn't have to be CC-by-NC. However, the original work would still be under CC-by-NC, so unless the original authors gave [you] other permissions, you'd still have to follow CC-by-NC for any derivatives. As for a work entirely released under *both* GFDL *and* CC-by-NC, that'd be kind of cool. You could use the work under the GFDL, complete with all its obnoxious requirements, *or* you could use the work under CC-by-NC, without all the GFDL's obnoxious requirements, but only if you do so for noncommercial purposes.
Anyway, I think the idea was that different articles would have different licenses.
Anthony