compatibility. They say that they will have a "free license" -- it it is GNU FDL, that's great. If it's something else, well, things can get very complicated as far as reuse goes. << In the month of February we will finalize the license issues, probably GNU FDL will be chosed. people who put copyrighted material into an on-line encyclopedia. That's easily removed as soon as it's recognized. It's going to be with people who try to claim personal copyrights on openly licensed or even public domain material. << Public domain material is by definition uncopyrighted. People can not, by definition, claim personal copyrights on public domain materials. At best, they can argue whether a certain material is in public domain or not. Personal copyrights on openly licensed material is not something new. If I create a material and publish it under the GNU FDL license, I still have copyright on it and I'm free to distribute it under any other license that I choose to. People will be able to use my material according to the GNU FDL, or select the alternative licenses that I offer to them. This is the way the Mozilla project ( http://mozilla.org ) works, by allowing their code to be distributed both under GPL and MPL licenses. That will be debated in the month of February, like specified above. Right now, it means that anybody contributing to the Open-site project agrees to its distribution license, while still retaining the copyright of their submissions. The words "Open-site" refer in that particular instance to the Open-site contributors. The Internet community can use content in the Open-site project according to its license (probably GNU GPL), but authors of the original content can still use the material at their discretion. would handle such issues as NPOV and vandalism. << Senior editors at the project have discretion regarding editorial account removal. Thanks, Vlad.