Debate:Should RationalWiki switch to CC-BY-SA 3.0?
(New debate.) |
Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) (I vote switch) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
To switch or not to switch, that is the question. {{User:ListenerX/sig0}} 15:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC) | To switch or not to switch, that is the question. {{User:ListenerX/sig0}} 15:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have been thinking about this myself, and glad that you brought it up. I think we ''should'' switch, we often upload material and images that are released under a creative commons license. It is actually not clear that we can really do that since the GFDL requires that any derivations of material from us be under GFDL, hence we change the licensing requirements for anyone that gets the CC material from ''us''. The CC-BY-SA is less restrictive, and more attuned with our philosophy, and also far more compatible with the majority of copyleft material on the internet. tmtoulouse 15:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:55, 23 June 2009
Question
Wikipedia has recently switched itself over to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license from the GFDL; the Free Software Foundation specifically modified the license to allow them to do this.
Although I am neutral on the subject of what license should be used on this Wiki, and do not know the full legalities of the matter, I am starting this debate because if we are to switch licenses, we must do so immediately. The FSF has declared that any Wiki wishing to switch to CC-BY-SA 3.0 must do so by August 1 of this year. [1]
To switch or not to switch, that is the question.
ListenerXTalkerX 15:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this myself, and glad that you brought it up. I think we should switch, we often upload material and images that are released under a creative commons license. It is actually not clear that we can really do that since the GFDL requires that any derivations of material from us be under GFDL, hence we change the licensing requirements for anyone that gets the CC material from us. The CC-BY-SA is less restrictive, and more attuned with our philosophy, and also far more compatible with the majority of copyleft material on the internet. tmtoulouse 15:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)