I've read the recent discussions on new project policies, and it seems that there is somewhat of a consensus that focusing on the existing projects is more important than recruiting new ones. I agree with this, but I also think that this should not prevent us from working on some policies for the future, as least on the question of licensing.
I participate in the WikiTree project [http://wikitree.org], and we're seeing some success and popularity. Before we get too big, though, we would like to know if there is any licensing policy that would be an issue if we later would like to become a part of WikiMedia. We're currently BY-NC-SA, and a license switch would essentially force us to erase all data and start over. As such, we'd like to get it right.
From an informal poll
[http://wikitree.org/index.php?title=WikiTree:License_poll], it seems that most people support a liberal license, mainly either Public Domain or GFDL. Would either of these be a good choice, and would they allow us to participate officially in WikiMedia in the future? Or would something else be more appropriate?
I look forward to your comments, either here or on the License Poll page linked above.
- Joel
Well, SA Creative Commons licenses are not really compatible with wiki philosophy...
On 8/25/05, Joel Konkle-Parker jjk3@msstate.edu wrote:
I've read the recent discussions on new project policies, and it seems that there is somewhat of a consensus that focusing on the existing projects is more important than recruiting new ones. I agree with this, but I also think that this should not prevent us from working on some policies for the future, as least on the question of licensing.
I participate in the WikiTree project [http://wikitree.org], and we're seeing some success and popularity. Before we get too big, though, we would like to know if there is any licensing policy that would be an issue if we later would like to become a part of WikiMedia. We're currently BY-NC-SA, and a license switch would essentially force us to erase all data and start over. As such, we'd like to get it right.
From an informal poll
[http://wikitree.org/index.php?title=WikiTree:License_poll], it seems that most people support a liberal license, mainly either Public Domain or GFDL. Would either of these be a good choice, and would they allow us to participate officially in WikiMedia in the future? Or would something else be more appropriate?
I look forward to your comments, either here or on the License Poll page linked above.
- Joel
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Well, SA Creative Commons licenses are not really compatible with wiki philosophy...
What's wrong with SA? It's NC that causes problems.
2005/8/25, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@gmail.com:
Well, SA Creative Commons licenses are not really compatible with wiki philosophy...
They're now, since you can get the attribution back to the Wiki, instead of the author, if that's what you're talking about.
That's why there's still a possibility Wikinews will be licensed under CC-By or CC-By-SA.
--- Joel Konkle-Parker jjk3@msstate.edu wrote:
I've read the recent discussions on new project policies, and it seems that there is somewhat of a consensus that focusing on the existing projects is more important than recruiting new ones. I agree with this, but I also think that this should not prevent us from working on some policies for the future, as least on the question of licensing.
I participate in the WikiTree project [http://wikitree.org], and we're seeing some success and popularity. Before we get too big, though, we would like to know if there is any licensing policy that would be an issue if we later would like to become a part of WikiMedia. We're currently BY-NC-SA, and a license switch would essentially force us to erase all data and start over. As such, we'd like to get it right.
Non-commercial licenses are evil. I seriously doubt any project with a non-com license would be adopted by the foundation. CC-BY-SA or FDL would be a better fit ; esp since CC and the FSF are working on making those licenses compatible.
What is this project about anyway? I can't access it right now for some reason. If it is, as I suspect, related to taxonomy or is focused on creating articles about living things, then that would be duplicated of two existing Wikimedia projects; Wikipedia (which aims to have articles on every genus on earth and articles on every living thing for which more than a stub can be written about) and the ill-conceived and poorly-executed fork of that at Wikispecies (a project that is nearly as embarrassing as the Sep11wiki).
-- mav
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Wikipedia (which aims to have articles on every genus on earth and articles on every living thing for which more than a stub can be written about) and the ill-conceived and poorly-executed fork of that at Wikispecies (a project that is nearly as embarrassing as the Sep11wiki).
I disagree; Sep11wiki is merely useless, a set of Wikipedia-like articles that are neither appropriate nor worth-while for an encyclopædia. Wikispecies, on the other hand, is actively damaging to the activities of Wikipedia, being as it is an insider fork, taking away contributors and putting back, well, nothing. I was very disappointed in its creation, to say the least; I feel it was a ghastly mistake.
Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
What is this project about anyway? I can't access it right now for some reason. If it is, as I suspect, related to taxonomy or is focused on creating articles about living things, then that would be duplicated of two existing Wikimedia projects; Wikipedia (which aims to have articles on every genus on earth and articles on every living thing for which more than a stub can be written about) and the ill-conceived and poorly-executed fork of that at Wikispecies (a project that is nearly as embarrassing as the Sep11wiki).
Insofar as it would be a more limited taxonomical database, it wouldn't even be eligible for copyright, at least in the United States (collections of facts aren't copyrightable), making the licensing discussion a bit academic.
-Mark
On 8/25/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
What is this project about anyway? I can't access it right now for some reason. If it is, as I suspect, related to taxonomy or is focused on creating articles about living things
It's a genealogy site. The main page says: "One of the main aims of the WikiTree Project is to provide a central place on the Internet for kin information about all people we know ever lived, automatically construct bloodline trees, and watch the gradual emergence of global family forest of humanity."
Angela.
--- Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote: It's a genealogy site. The main page says: "One of the main aims of the WikiTree Project is to provide a central place on the Internet for kin information about all people we know ever lived, automatically construct bloodline trees, and watch the gradual emergence of global family forest of humanity."
Neat - we have a project proposal for that called 'Wikipeople'.
see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipeople
A merger of the above proposal with Wikitree may eventually be in order. But an NC license is a no-starter for me.
-- mav
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote: It's a genealogy site. The main page says: "One of the main aims of the WikiTree Project is to provide a central place on the Internet for kin information about all people we know ever lived, automatically construct bloodline trees, and watch the gradual emergence of global family forest of humanity."
Neat - we have a project proposal for that called 'Wikipeople'.
see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipeople
A merger of the above proposal with Wikitree may eventually be in order. But an NC license is a no-starter for me.
-- mav
You might also want to look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects/inactive#Wikitree
The person who started the project originally wanted to do it as a Wikimedia project, but figured it would get much more success doing it on their own. As far as licensing issues are concerned, there is a major thread on the topic at:
http://wikitree.org/index.php?title=WikiTree:Treehouse#Licensing
Including some comments by people who are critics of the Free Software Foundation and the GFDL in particular that should get some note. I think the NC license was a mistake for that site, and it is a show stopper for me as well to do major contributions. I do like, however, some of the MediaWiki software changes they have done to make it work better with geneological data.
Wikitree is currently voting on a new liscence at http://wikitree.org/index.php? title=WikiTree:License_poll.
So far the consensus seems to be public domain, would this be acceptable for a Wikimedia project?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Benjamin Webb wrote:
Wikitree is currently voting on a new liscence at http://wikitree.org/index.php? title=WikiTree:License_poll.
So far the consensus seems to be public domain, would this be acceptable for a Wikimedia project?
No, based on the inability for almost all people in the world to legally contribute based on that licence (many countries have no legal scope for a person to relinquish their work into the public domain, including the EU).
CC-BY is effectively the same, FWIW, and I would counsel the use of that instead. CC-BY 2.5 even allows the crediting of an overall collective organisation in lieu of the individuals (i.e., "this is released under the Creative Commons Attribution licence; please credit WikiTree").
HTH.
Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
James D. Forrester <james@...> writes:
No, based on the inability for almost all people in the world to legally contribute based on that licence (many countries have no legal scope for a person to relinquish their work into the public domain, including the EU).
CC-BY is effectively the same, FWIW, and I would counsel the use of that instead. CC-BY 2.5 even allows the crediting of an overall collective organisation in lieu of the individuals (i.e., "this is released under the Creative Commons Attribution licence; please credit WikiTree").
CC-BY does sound like a good option, but would "Copyrighted Free Use" have the same problems as public domain?
Benjamin Webb a écrit :
James D. Forrester <james@...> writes:
No, based on the inability for almost all people in the world to legally contribute based on that licence (many countries have no legal scope for a person to relinquish their work into the public domain, including the EU).
CC-BY is effectively the same, FWIW, and I would counsel the use of that instead. CC-BY 2.5 even allows the crediting of an overall collective organisation in lieu of the individuals (i.e., "this is released under the Creative Commons Attribution licence; please credit WikiTree").
CC-BY does sound like a good option, but would "Copyrighted Free Use" have the same problems as public domain?
Said like this, yes.
We are now trying to write a proper and simple license for Wikinews. Have a look if you want to get ideas.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org