On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Andrew Bogott <[email protected]> wrote:
> Currently the labs Terms of Use says " all content must be freely > licensable under an applicable creative commons license." That seems to > exclude OSM data, which surely is not our intent. I note that the item just > before that (about software licenses) uses a more expansive term, " > OSI-approved open source licenses." Is there a similar umbrella term that > we can use for content that would include CC-like licenses without > restricting users to actual, literal CC licensing? Per our licensing policy, the definition at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition is our canonical equivalent of the OSI for free content licenses, so it would make sense to use it as a reference point in the same manner, e.g. "all content must be licensable under an applicable free cultural works license as per the [http://freedomdefined.org/Definition Definition of Free Cultural Works]". Disclosure: I co-authored both the WMF licensing policy and the DFCW. Legal should be able to confirm that the language above is workable. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ Labs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
