On 24 Sep 2006, at 22:01, Gregory Maxwell wrote: Most contributors donating their own content don't care very much what licence they use as they are unlikely to make any financial gain anyway. Look at the amount of material put on YouTube, who get rights automatically. There are far too many options anyway when uploading a file - who knows how many contributors just give up straight away. So decide what rights the project needs, and ask for those. It works for text on WP.

On 9/24/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think that there is a bigger point that we are missing here. The fact is that the most restrictive CC license (cc-by-nd-nc, ie. it only allows free, non-commercial redistribution) is still far freer (is that how you spell "more free"?) than normal copyright. Most traditional copyright holders would never allow anything short of normal copyright on their content, let alone a free license. CC gives them an oppertunity to atleast open up their work some, and that not saying little. We can't expect to win them all over at once. Baby step, people, baby steps. I don't really care all that much about what the ratio of the free licenses to the non-free CC licenses are, aslong as they are CC! --Oskar

On 9/24/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] I don't... not when the semi-permissive nature of the license is only semi permissive in a way which fails to leave almost any of the permitted actions legally clear. Even the creative commons beloved file trading would easily run afoul of the NC terms... Don't get me wrong, I think that more liberal terms are better... But the less free CC licenses are not more liberal in a material way... If you are safe under them, then you would usually be safe doing what you are doing with all rights reserved material. .. and of course there are gems like SAMPLING+ which pointlessly reject use which even permitted under fair use in the US. Stephen Streater above made my point more clearly than I did.. Many people don't care, and the CC branding confusion is causing people who don't care to pick licenses which are unfree. They might be more liberal terms than all rights reserved (although I'd argue that they are effectively not...), but they are simply not free. It's a real pain, but as the producers of one of the largest and well known repositories of Free Content in the world, we should make it a point of keeping people educated on this matter. [snip] Biggest issue I've run into with ND is people who think that ND gives them special protection from fraud. "I don't want someone changing my words and then being able to claim I said the modified statement". ... of course, that isn't the job of a copyright license.... (and ND itself doesn't stop a person with malicious intent).. but people don't know better.

On 9/24/06, Scott Zager <archmagusrm(a)gmail.com> wrote: in theory this is being worked on here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia -- geni