Here's a thought... could all new Wikimedia sites, no matter what language or project, be created under a Creative Commons license, instead of GFDL? We of course cannot change existing sites over to that slimmer, trimmer license, but it would be a good idea for any new works.
Nick
On 3/1/07, Nicholas Moreau nicholasmoreau@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a thought... could all new Wikimedia sites, no matter what language or project, be created under a Creative Commons license, instead of GFDL? We of course cannot change existing sites over to that slimmer, trimmer license, but it would be a good idea for any new works.
Nick
Would create problems with translations and other tanswiki stuff.
Creative commons also has it's own issues. People have problems understanding the lisence mixes
CC-by-ND-NC CC-by-Sa-NC CC-by-ND Founder's copyright Developing nations CC CC wiki licence It gets messy
Secondly creative commons tends to be more interested in the author rather than the reuser. The FSF tends to operate the other way around.
CC lisences also have a tendacy not to quite do what they say on the tin which can lead to people being missled.
At the present time the proposed LGFDL looks like a better bet.
The new GFDL looks like an interesting development, but i think we should at least look at the possibility of dual-licensing new projects under GFDL and CC-BY-SA (the same as with pictures on commons).
-- Husky / Hay Kranen
On 3/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/1/07, Nicholas Moreau nicholasmoreau@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a thought... could all new Wikimedia sites, no matter what
language
or project, be created under a Creative Commons license, instead of
GFDL? We
of course cannot change existing sites over to that slimmer, trimmer license, but it would be a good idea for any new works.
Nick
Would create problems with translations and other tanswiki stuff.
Creative commons also has it's own issues. People have problems understanding the lisence mixes
CC-by-ND-NC CC-by-Sa-NC CC-by-ND Founder's copyright Developing nations CC CC wiki licence It gets messy
Secondly creative commons tends to be more interested in the author rather than the reuser. The FSF tends to operate the other way around.
CC lisences also have a tendacy not to quite do what they say on the tin which can lead to people being missled.
At the present time the proposed LGFDL looks like a better bet.
geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3/1/07, Husky huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
The new GFDL looks like an interesting development, but i think we should at least look at the possibility of dual-licensing new projects under GFDL and CC-BY-SA (the same as with pictures on commons).
Given that this could result in people createing derivatives we could not use I do not think this is a very good course of action.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org