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(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
wikinews-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *
wikinewssvt(a)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.
*SVT**Cobra*
----- 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l(a)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.
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org