Personally, I want to license our original material as cc-by-sa. Whether we have to license it also as GFDL is something I want to get legal counsel.
In fact, someone would be doing us a great service if you would give me deep links and e-mail addresses to open source advocacy groups that might be able to provide us with pro bono legal counsel........ --Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > David Goodman > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 2:30 PM > To: Darren Duncan > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Citizendium-l] From David Marshall, about the license > > > With respect to material _not_ taken from WP, are we going to > accept material with some of the CC licenses? Even WP does > for illustrations, I think. (Not _all_ the CC licenses, > probably) . We'd obviously have to indicate what, but I > think we intend to indicate sourcing anyway. And I think when > we edit something from WP, we should explicitly indicate what > part is from WP (and all PD sources, for that matter). I know > it (unfortunately) isn't done on WP > > On 11/1/06, Darren Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 5:39 AM +0000 11/1/06, luke brandt wrote: > > >Peter Hitchmough wrote: > > > > I have restored the GFDL copyright and copyright logo into the > > >wiki. It > > >> was a config issue. > > >> > > >> I am busy extending Wiki code to authoritatively track articles > > >> imported from WP. For all unedited articles and articles first > > >> imported from WP the templates will be automagically included. > > >> > > > > --Peter > > > > > >Sorry if I missed this, but has any policy been decided on whether > > >we, on our part, allow 'fair use' or are we to strictly > adhere to the > > >GFDL. > > > > If we are copying content verbatim or almost verbatim from > Wikipedia, > > then there is no point for discussion; its GFDL or the > highway. The > > fact is that the GFDL is giving us extra rights to use Wikipedia > > content that we otherwise wouldn't have under plain > copyright law, so > > we accept the GFDL or we don't copy the content, period. > The only way > > we can use the Wikipedia content and not be subject to the > GFDL is if > > we are only doing things with it that vanilla copyright law > allows. > > For example, if we completely rewrite the articles, so that > we present > > the information using our own words instead of theirs, then that is > > fine. As for "fair use", that involves maybe copying 1 or > 2 sentences > > from an article, with attributions. Copy more actual > Wikipedia text > > than such a minimum, and its only the GFDL that allows > this, under its > > criteria. -- Darren Duncan > > _______________________________________________ > > Citizendium-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l > > > > > -- > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > _______________________________________________ > Citizendium-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l > > > > _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
