On 1/19/07, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
Guettarda wrote:
On 1/18/07, Steve Block
<steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
Matt R wrote:
As per the subject, excerpts from:
https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2007-January/000863.html
Larry Sanger writes,
"After seeing the widespread support for the suggestion
that we try *not* forking Wikipedia--i.e., that we delete all articles
that
are not marked "CZ Live"--I am about to
instruct our tech team to go
ahead
and make the deletion...
I'm a bit
clueless, but does this mean they haven't used any Wikipedia
content, or that they have but they're hiding it? I mean, all the
articles that are marked "CZ Live", are they based on Wikipedia content?
And if they are, doesn't that mean they *have* to license under GFDL?
Which, unless I got confused in another thread, they aren't planning
to do?
Steve block
Steve - if you poke around the Citizendium forum (there's a link to it in
Matt's email) a lot of your questions may be answered.
I looked at Citizendium a while back but couldn't for the life of me
work out how I was supposed to become a contributor so I gave up looking
at it.
Apparently their first "approved"
article, Biology, was a complete re-write
- the Wikipedia article was blanked. Other people have modified existing
articles. As I understand it, the CZ Live stuff is stuff that people are
working on.
Obviously they can't release work based on WP articles under a more
restrictive license. New material could be - it seems to me that there's a
debate between people who want the whole project to by cc-by-nc and those
who want it to stay GFDL.
I can't see how you can ringfence certain articles. If information is
moved from one GFDL article to another, a cc by nc, then the new article
must be both GFDL and cc by nc, no? And aren't they incompatible?
CC-by-NC isn't a copyleft license, so the compatibility would be
really strange. A derivative of a GFDL article (which wasn't an
aggregate) would have to be GFDL. But a derivative of a CC-by-NC
article doesn't have to be CC-by-NC. However, the original work would
still be under CC-by-NC, so unless the original authors gave [you]
other permissions, you'd still have to follow CC-by-NC for any
derivatives. As for a work entirely released under *both* GFDL *and*
CC-by-NC, that'd be kind of cool. You could use the work under the
GFDL, complete with all its obnoxious requirements, *or* you could use
the work under CC-by-NC, without all the GFDL's obnoxious
requirements, but only if you do so for noncommercial purposes.
Anyway, I think the idea was that different articles would have
different licenses.
Anthony