"Jean-Baptiste Soufron" wrote:
As far as I can say, if we want to avoid any risk of misunderstanding, it would be much better to use CC material to explain CCBY2.5
The problem I notice (sorry I have not the licence at hand to cite) is that the licence says that you should state the author in the way was given by the author.
As well as a link to the licence we need to provide the information of how to give the right credit.
But even so, these licenses were not written for being used on such content as Wikinews. There will be problems of interpretation and application that will require some material on our own to guide content reusers.
If this is really the case (is it?) and problems occur then we will better consider if changing the licence to a different type of licence is better.
Still, that's not the case yet and we should stick to CC explanation material as much as we can.
AnyFile