live.gnome.org contents license

[Javier Jardón]

Hello,

I think this is my first message here so hello everyone!

I'd like to discuss about the license of the Gnome wiki content.

I think that would be good set a license by default to the
live.gnome.org content.
So, this should do more easy and clear share the contents of the wiki.
(If you don't specify any license, you have all the rigths of the
content)

I think CC-by-sa 3.0 would be a good choice, because it has already
been choosen by our doc team for new documentation. (and by important
sites, like wikipedia)

Best regards,

--
Javier Jardón Cabezas
_______________________________________________
gnome-web-list mailing list
gnome-web-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-web-list

[Paul Cutler-3]

I agree that CC-SA 3.0 is the best solution.  The issue is in re-licensing all of the existing content, which may not be possible due to having to get each writer / editors permission.  Anyone have any insight on how Wikipedia did it?

Paul

2009/8/4 Javier Jardón <javierjc1982@...>

Hello,

I think this is my first message here so hello everyone!

I'd like to discuss about the license of the Gnome wiki content.

I think that would be good set a license by default to the
live.gnome.org content.
So, this should do more easy and clear share the contents of the wiki.
(If you don't specify any license, you have all the rigths of the
content)

I think CC-by-sa 3.0 would be a good choice, because it has already
been choosen by our doc team for new documentation. (and by important
sites, like wikipedia)

Best regards,

--
Javier Jardón Cabezas
_______________________________________________
gnome-web-list mailing list
gnome-web-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-web-list

_______________________________________________
gnome-web-list mailing list
gnome-web-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-web-list

[Javier Jardón]

[Hello luis, we are discussing the license of Gnome wiki contents on,
see the complete thread here [1], shaunm said that maybe you are
interested]

El 4 de agosto de 2009 23:07, Paul Cutler<pcutler@...> escribió:
> I agree that CC-SA 3.0 is the best solution.  The issue is in re-licensing
> all of the existing content, which may not be possible due to having to get
> each writer / editors permission.  Anyone have any insight on how Wikipedia
> did it?
>

Wikipedia moves from licensed under the GFDL to dual licensed under
GFDL plus Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0.

You can see the process here [1] and a interesting lessig post here [2]


Regards,

[1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-web-list/2009-August/msg00000.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Licensing_update
[3] http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/11/enormously_important_news_from.html


--
Javier Jardón Cabezas
_______________________________________________
gnome-web-list mailing list
gnome-web-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-web-list

[Florian Ludwig-2]

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 16:07 -0500, Paul Cutler wrote:
> Anyone have any insight on how Wikipedia did it?

There is a paragraph just for the wikipedia transition in the GFDL 1.3.
Wikipedia was licensed with GFDL 1.2 + newer. The newer version said "if
you're wikipedia you can relicense to CC-BY-SA 3.0".

Or, from the license FAQ: [0]

Q. Exactly what material can be licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0?
       
        A. In order to license an FDL-covered work under CC-BY-SA 3.0, a
        few conditions must be met:
       
              * The work must be available under the terms of FDL 1.3,
                which provides you with this permission. If the work was
                released under the terms of “the GNU Free Documentation
                License, version 1.2 or (at your option) any later
                version,” then it meets this criteria.
               
              * The work must not have any “Cover Texts” or “Invariant
                Sections.” These are optional features in all versions
                of the FDL.
               
              * If the work was originally published somewhere other
                than a public wiki, it must have been added to a wiki
                (or some other kind of web site where the general public
                could review and edit the materials) before November 1,
                2008.
               
               

From the license [1]:
"The operator of an MMC [Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site] Site
may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same
site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for
relicensing."


[0] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html
--
Florian Ludwig <dino@...>


_______________________________________________
gnome-web-list mailing list
gnome-web-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-web-list