[Foundation-l] Let's switch to CC-BY-SA

[Brian McNeil]

David Gerard wrote:

>I'd say it's not a legal problem - it's a public relations problem
>(internal and external). Looking like we're asserting "all your base
>are belong to us, sue if you don't like it" would appear (and IMO be)
>extremely rude behaviour.

Wikinews transitioned to a CC-BY license some time ago. We could manage that
because articles cease being edited when they're a few days old. The
community was small at the time, and with news there is a greater desire to
be credited for your work - even if only to the site you contribute to.

If you dig through our archives you'll find articles tagged with a notice
saying they're under GFDL, but if you look you'll see they're all protected.

I do not think the same sort of transition is possible for Wikipedia.
Updating through FDL licenses to one that better suits the project may
frustrate some as the drafting process is slow; it has, however, to be a far
better option than alienating a portion of the contributor base.

>From some of the other comments in this discussion I'd like to see the issue
of authors addressed in whatever new FDL license comes out. The wiki way of
tracking an article's history provides more information than the license
requires, yet some can argue it does not meet the terms. The terms *should*
state that the data be presented in a human-readable format which is - if
needed - documented. I am sure there are aspects to the currently being
developed license that take more into account the nature of works on the
Internet; the old license seems more geared towards print in this respect.

Going back to Wikinews, and our CC-BY license, we've been using GFDL images
from Commons for ages - am I missing some subtle distinction between
licenses that means we're not in the wrong doing this? Some of the comments
in this discussion have suggested that if you use any GFDL content the
document containing it must also be GFDL.


Brian McNeil.