Ah, ok. I didn't realize the old content was GFDL. ----- "Chris Messina" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
