The issue of which licence(s) to use is beyond me for the moment - ad best considered under good advice and decided by the CIti board.
However, I believe we should be deciding on a policy (I'll post on citi-policy) and we should be clear where we stand through the pilot and any subsequent beta phase. By this I mean that we have declared the present content to be GFDL in light of the Wikipedia content. I believe we need some agreement and an interim statement/disclaimer adding to the wiki.
--Peter Hitchmough
On 11/1/06, Larry Sanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
