On Nov 21, 2007 7:30 AM, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote:
Multilicensing where authors select the license they
wish is - in my opinion
- a bad idea for a wiki. Wiki is designed with the purpose of allowing
multiple contributors, and if you allow contributor A to say his stuff is
-CC-NC and contributor B to say his stuff is CC-BY-SA, then you have - for a
site like wikibooks - a book nobody will touch with a ten foot pole.
Google's response will be, "we have no easy way to figure the license",
not
to be included in our list of reusable stuff... Gee you've loads of these,
better not list the site at all."
We've had one instance of this where a contributor insists he wishes his
contributions released under PD. Other people have rewritten parts of his
articles to bring it back under CC-BY, and many - like myself - will not
touch articles he starts with his PD template on them. Multiple licenses can
be grounds for a lack of cooperation between people with different
philosophical outlooks.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of teun spaans
Sent: 21 November 2007 13:20
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Citizendium License (Was: [EWW]
EditWikipediaWeek)
You dont need a special date - you might even have a multilicense situation
where the authors of each book select the public license under which they
would like to publish their book. Book A might be under GFDL, while book B
can be under CC-BY-SA, and book C could be under CC-NC. The main problem
arises when authors would like to reuse material which has been published by
someone else under another licnese.
If that author puts their stuff under the PD (standing for Public
Domain, I believe) then you can do anything with it that you wish.
Correct me if I'm wrong. ~~~~
--
Absolute Power
C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y