On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Ryan Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's easy to include open source licenses because we have an organization > that certifies what counts as open source. Is there a similar organization > for open content licenses? The WMF's policy ( https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy ) references the Definition of Free Cultural Works ( http://freedomdefined.org/Definition ) which has some comparisons of licenses (e.g. http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses ) but does not expressly approve or reject licenses as such. In practice, the community of sites like Wikimedia Commons has been vetting licenses for DFCW compatibility (through wiki pages like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing ) and I think a similar process would be viable here. That said, there's another definition that's supported by a non-profit organization, the Open Knowledge Definition ( http://opendefinition.org/ ) which maintains a list of conformant licenses similar to OSI's approved open source licenses ( http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ ). It's not very comprehensive, but it for example includes the ODbl. Either approach (referencing the DFCW which is the baseline of WMF's licensing policy, and letting the community sort out disputes, or referencing the OKD) should be workable. The OKD does not materially differ from the DFCW for most practical purposes, IIRC (cf. http://opendefinition.org/okd/ ). 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
