On 7/30/08, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
David Gerard writes:
We can and should (and, AFAIK, do) heartily support the CC-BY default license. Because that's free content, and supporting that wherever it springs up and making proper free content licenses the *expected default* for reference works is 100% in line with WMF's mission. Without us having to do the actual work!
I think it's proper to say we don't oppose CC-BY, but that it's inconsistent with the licensing schemes we've embraced (GFDL and CC-BY- SA), because it's non-viral -- it doesn't require that derivative content be issued under the same free license under which it was distributed.
I can't see how content distributed under the licenses Knol offers can be reproduced in WMF projects, and I can't see how content produced under WMF's licensing options can be reproduced in Knol. To me, that raises a serious problem.
--Mike
I don't mean to denigrate the legal issues here, being a lawyer myself and all (but not an intellectual property specialist) ... but are the differences betwen the licenses in this context such as to raise practical issues, or purely theoretical ones? If, as is likely, there is frequent copying of content back-and-forth between the projects no matter what the policies or licenses say, are there likely to be significant consequences? If so, what can be done about it?
I'm also curious how the problem can run in both directions. I can understand that one license would be more restrictive than the other, such that material from project A couldn't be freely used in project B. But the nuances of the license requirements must be subtle indeed if the incompatability runs both ways. Not being a license terms aficionado, I'd appreciate a layman's explanation of the issues.
Can/should the issues be addressed by discussion with Knol before the problem grows more serious over time?
Newyorkbrad