It's all making sense now. Wikinfo allows a variety of "open sorce" licenses, and even the publishing of protected "no modification" pages of original research under real names non-commercial free, but the author retaining commercial rights. I just recently started looking at the variety of Creative Commons options, very cool stuff. Never paid a lot of attention to licensing in the past, but I'm learning that I really should.
cs
On Dec 15, 2007 1:11 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
You can use MediaWiki with any license you want. MediaWiki is itself
GFDL but
things made with MediaWiki are not. If you edited the MediaWiki software
the
GFDL would inherit to that but not if you write a document with it.
The software itself is actually GPL, not GFDL. But you would only have to distribute your changes if you copy your modified version (all the powers of the GPL come from copyright) for distribution outside the company. (You can put it on a public-facing website without triggering this.)
A large variety of licenses are used for various projects. The English Wikinews
for
example uses Creative Commons Attribution 2.5. And Conservapedia uses a
unique
one http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Copyright (I love how even on that page they still feel a need to compare
themselves to
Wikipedia. They have just a tiny obsession with us it seems). Anyways,
the
point is that you can use MediaWiki without having to worry about the
GFDL.
yep :-)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l