[OpenID board] [legal] openid.net and wiki.openid.net copyright notice.

David Recordon david at sixapart.com
Sat Jan 31 22:10:03 UTC 2009


Ah, ok. I didn't realize the old content was GFDL. 

----- "Chris Messina" <chris.messina at gmail.com> wrote: 
> I only inherited what was on the previous wiki. 

> 
I agree that CC-BY-SA is better and can go and change it. 

> 
The question is the balance between the old content, which was under the GFDL and the new content. 

> 
I didn't migrate over all the content, and some of it was sufficiently changed that it seems like applying a new license (CC-BY-SA) should be fine -- and in keeping with the spirit of the prior license. 

> 
Can we go ahead and make that change or do we need to contact all contributors and get their permission? 

> 
Chris 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:53 PM, David Recordon < david at sixapart.com > wrote: 
> 



> Given http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7876 it seems like CC-BY-SA is what the Wikimedia Foundation is working on moving to from the GFDL. 
> 
> As an aside, how are we just relicensing exisiting content that was contributed under no license? 
> 
> --David 


> 
> 
> ----- "Chris Messina" < chris.messina at gmail.com > wrote: 
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Nat Sakimura < sakimura at gmail.com > wrote: 
> > 


> > 

> > 
> 


> > I see no problem in placing a CC license on the site and the wiki, though considering many people have contributed to the wiki I doubt we can just place a CC license on the existing content. I don't see a problem in placing a CC license on the site content given that we can contact the small group of people who wrote it and ask for their permission. 

> > The original Wiki site had GFDL. People should have agreed to GFDL when they posted. 
> > The current one has not such provision, and that is a problem. 

> > 
I've added the GFDL license to the new wiki's sidebar. We can change it later if we need to. 

> > 
We can also add a page describing the licensing terms for contributions to the wiki. Currently it does not seem like we'll be able to add a licensing checkbox for new members to agree to. 

> > 



> > 

> > As to which CC license we should pick, I would promote 
> > 
> > CC BY-SA-NC 
> > 
> > If they are publishing a book by reprinting wiki for profit, we should be able to collect some money to help the community. Any thought? 
> > 

> > That seems unlikely (publishing a book of the wiki for profit). It's conceivable, but unlikely. 

> > 
I think CC BY-SA would be sufficient -- then at least whatever derivative works are created would need to be shared under the same license. 

> > 
Chris 

> > -- 
> > Chris Messina 
> > Citizen-Participant & 
> > Open Web Advocate-at-Large 
> > 
> > factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org 
> > citizenagency.com # vidoop.com 
> > This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private 
> > 
> 

> -- 
> Chris Messina 
> Citizen-Participant & 
> Open Web Advocate-at-Large 
> 
> factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org 
> citizenagency.com # vidoop.com 
> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20090131/1e2ac527/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the board mailing list