[WikiEN-l] Citizendium trying out not being a fork of Wikipedia for a while

[Anthony]

On 1/19/07, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Guettarda wrote:
> > On 1/18/07, Steve Block <steve.block at myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >> Matt R wrote:
> >>> As per the subject, excerpts from:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2007-January/000863.html
> >>> Larry Sanger writes,
> >>>
> >>>   "After seeing the widespread support for the suggestion
> >>> that we try *not* forking Wikipedia--i.e., that we delete all articles
> >> that
> >>> are not marked "CZ Live"--I am about to instruct our tech team to go
> >> ahead
> >>> and make the deletion...
> >> I'm a bit clueless, but does this mean they haven't used any Wikipedia
> >> content, or that they have but they're hiding it?  I mean, all the
> >> articles that are marked "CZ Live", are they based on Wikipedia content?
> >>   And if they are, doesn't that mean they *have* to license under GFDL?
> >>   Which, unless I got confused in another thread, they aren't planning
> >> to do?
> >>
> >> Steve block
> >
> >
> > Steve - if you poke around the Citizendium forum (there's a link to it in
> > Matt's email) a lot of your questions may be answered.
>
> I looked at Citizendium a while back but couldn't for the life of me
> work out how I was supposed to become a contributor so I gave up looking
> at it.
>
> > Apparently their first "approved" article, Biology, was a complete re-write
> > - the Wikipedia article was blanked.  Other people have modified existing
> > articles.  As I understand it, the CZ Live stuff is stuff that people are
> > working on.
> >
> > Obviously they can't release work based on WP articles under a more
> > restrictive license.  New material could be - it seems to me that there's a
> > debate between people who want the whole project to by cc-by-nc and those
> > who want it to stay GFDL.
>
> I can't see how you can ringfence certain articles.  If information is
> moved from one GFDL article to another, a cc by nc, then the new article
> must be both GFDL and cc by nc, no?  And aren't they incompatible?
>
CC-by-NC isn't a copyleft license, so the compatibility would be
really strange.  A derivative of a GFDL article (which wasn't an
aggregate) would have to be GFDL.  But a derivative of a CC-by-NC
article doesn't have to be CC-by-NC.  However, the original work would
still be under CC-by-NC, so unless the original authors gave [you]
other permissions, you'd still have to follow CC-by-NC for any
derivatives.  As for a work entirely released under *both* GFDL *and*
CC-by-NC, that'd be kind of cool.  You could use the work under the
GFDL, complete with all its obnoxious requirements, *or* you could use
the work under CC-by-NC, without all the GFDL's obnoxious
requirements, but only if you do so for noncommercial purposes.

Anyway, I think the idea was that different articles would have
different licenses.

Anthony