Guettarda wrote:
On 1/18/07, Steve Block
<steve.block(a)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?
Still, not really a huge amount of sense discussing citizendium here.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.0/639 - Release Date: 18/01/07 18:47