[Foundation-l] Licensing interim update

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
> CC are most likely to go along with what is sensible and are very
> likely to listen to WMF when defining 'sensible'.

I have little doubt that's the case.

> The license as it is
> is pretty damn close to good enough (hence the dropping of the wiki
> license?) and I certainly don't see any show-stoppers.

A "CC wiki license" has been mentioned a couple times now. Just to
clear up what that was (to the extent it existed):

- A "beta" and a draft not intended to be used during the CC v2.5
drafting process, including the main change in that version, allowing
one to designate that attribution go to the author and/or a third
party (to support some wiki and similar use cases, thus the name), see
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5344 and more importantly
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447 (admittedly some of the
language in those posts is not as clear as it could've been, so long
overdue apologies for that).

- An license icon that said "wiki" on it, but its use was just to
point at CC BY-SA 2.5, which included the above change. A quick search
turns up some in the wild, eg in the footer of
http://stackoverflow.com

So if you've heard of a "CC wiki license" it is just CC BY-SA, and
note that CC has realized that attribution for wikis is an interesting
and important case for a long time.  Obviously it is also a hard thing
to get right, still developing, as evinced by the discussion right
now.

Mike