Given http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7876 it seems like CC-BY-SA is what the Wikimedia Foundation is working on moving to from the GFDL.
As an aside, how are we just relicensing exisiting content that was contributed under no license? --David ----- "Chris Messina" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Nat Sakimura < [email protected] > wrote: > > > > > I see no problem in placing a CC license on the site and the wiki, though > considering many people have contributed to the wiki I doubt we can just > place a CC license on the existing content. I don't see a problem in placing > a CC license on the site content given that we can contact the small group of > people who wrote it and ask for their permission. > The original Wiki site had GFDL. People should have agreed to GFDL when they > posted. > The current one has not such provision, and that is a problem. > I've added the GFDL license to the new wiki's sidebar. We can change it later if we need to. > We can also add a page describing the licensing terms for contributions to the wiki. Currently it does not seem like we'll be able to add a licensing checkbox for new members to agree to. > > > As to which CC license we should pick, I would promote > > CC BY-SA-NC > > If they are publishing a book by reprinting wiki for profit, we should be > able to collect some money to help the community. Any thought? > > That seems unlikely (publishing a book of the wiki for profit). It's > conceivable, but unlikely. > I think CC BY-SA would be sufficient -- then at least whatever derivative works are created would need to be shared under the same license. > Chris > -- > Chris Messina > Citizen-Participant & > Open Web Advocate-at-Large > > factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org > citizenagency.com # vidoop.com > This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private >
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
