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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu
<joshua.zelinsky(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l