[Labs-l] Licensing: CC vs. ODbL vs. ???

[Erik Moeller]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Andrew Bogott <abogott at wikimedia.org> wrote:

>     Currently the labs Terms of Use says " all content must be freely
> licensable under an applicable creative commons license."  That seems to
> exclude OSM data, which surely is not our intent.  I note that the item just
> before that (about software licenses) uses a more expansive term, "
> OSI-approved open source licenses."  Is there a similar umbrella term that
> we can use for content that would include CC-like licenses without
> restricting users to actual, literal CC licensing?

Per our licensing policy, the definition at
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition is our canonical equivalent of
the OSI for free content licenses, so it would make sense to use it as
a reference point in the same manner, e.g.

"all content must be licensable under an applicable free cultural
works license as per the [http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
Definition of Free Cultural Works]".

Disclosure: I co-authored both the WMF licensing policy and the DFCW.
Legal should be able to confirm that the language above is workable.

Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate