[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