There are two changes WP must make before that can happen.
First they have to move to the new GFDL which has the CC migration clause.
Then they have to move to the CC license.
-----Original Message----- From: wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of wikinewssvt@optonline.net Sent: 02 March 2009 16:39 To: Wikinews mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change?
Regarding the Wikipedia license change ...
... It is my belief that after they make their change, Wikinews will be able to cut and paste passages from Wikipedia.
Is my assumption correct or false?
It would be helpful in quickly creating background information for articles and eliminates one place we have to look for copyvios.
SVTCobra
----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Davis Date: Monday, March 2, 2009 1:37 am Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] License change? To: Wikinews mailing list
Yea. Forgive me. For some reason I had the wild ass notion that the old articles were GFDL. I really don't know where that came from.
-Jon
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 22:18, Ilya Haykinson wrote:
I agree with Bawolff on this one. The license change is mainly a problem for GFDL wikis, which suffer from some problems with attribution and reuse in CC-licensed projects as a result of their license. We do not have this issue, and don't really need to change. Even if we wanted to, we would face an uphill battle in making our license more restrictive retroactively. Unless there's an overriding reason to do so, I'd elect to retain our more-free license in place. Goodness knows, we don't need _more_ restrictions on reuse of
Wikinews> content ;-)
-ilya
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM, bawolff
wrote: From my understanding, wmf wants to change the lices from
gfdl to
cc-by-sa-(3? not sure on version) which is quite different
than cc-by
(similar to the difference between GPL and BSD from my
understanding).> > We also don't really have the ability to arbitrary change license (we
could say something like from this day forward, everything
is blah
license, but thats messy).
Anyways, i think our license is pretty good. Many people
feel that
modifying wikinews content without allowing redistribution
is a
perfectly good use of our content, which a change in license would disallow.
--
- bawolff
p.s. everything before sep 05 is PD, not GFDL. We currently
have only
a single gfdl article in all of wikinews (not counting help
ns +
images)
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jon Davis
wrote:
I realize we all _love_ a conversation about changing
licenses... but
here I
go.
The WMF has been disusing the change of WP from GFDL to CC-
BY (since
that is
now allowed for a short period of time). Since everything
newer than
Sept
05 on en.wn is CC-BY-2.5 (and everything older than that is
GFDL)... why
can't we "upgrade" all the old articles to CC-BY also? I
realize we
don't
"need" to do it, as the old articles are of little interest
to most
people,
but we have the opportunity... shouldn't we take it?
-Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]]
-- This is a test of the emergency sig system.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- This is a test of the emergency sig system.
Oh, and the following location only accurate +/- 100 miles. So if you're coming to get me, better send a nuke. Sent from: Sunnyvale CA United States.