As far as I am aware, it is not possible for any of the Wikinews
editions to choose a license. The WMF Board is the only group which can
choose a license, and what I understood was they would like the project
as a whole to select a license which is most compatible with the goals
of the entire project, not any single edition.
As to the suggested license, CC-by-sa, the primary argument against that
license in previous versions was the requirement for attribution to all
contributors by downstream content reusers. If version 2.5 allows
attribution to the originating project then I see no reason not to adopt
So to answer your questions:
1) Do we need to license it right now?
Yes, the longer we wait the more content there is to relicense, and the
larger the likelihood of argument and dispute over relicensing.
2) Will we really choose CC-By-SA 2.5, or some other
GFDL or CC-By, for example?
As far as I am concerned, the CC-by-sa 2.5 appears to answer all the
previously-raised concerns and has the added benefit of an active
community developing and maintaining the licensure.
3) What should we do about the Wikinews projects which
already have a
It should be gently pointed out to them that it is not something they
can actually do, and ask them to bring their input to this discussion?
I'm not sure how to bring it up without causing some level of conflict,
but they might be asked how they decided they *could* change the license
without asking the Foundation.