I only inherited what was on the previous wiki. I agree that CC-BY-SA is better and can go and change it.
The question is the balance between the old content, which was under the GFDL and the new content. I didn't migrate over all the content, and some of it was sufficiently changed that it seems like applying a new license (CC-BY-SA) should be fine -- and in keeping with the spirit of the prior license. Can we go ahead and make that change or do we need to contact all contributors and get their permission? Chris On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:53 PM, David Recordon <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > -- 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
