P2PVenture.org's Wiki talk:Community Portal
From P2PVenture.org's Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 15:53, 17 September 2007 (edit) SamRose (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 16:03, 17 September 2007 (edit) (undo) SamRose (Talk | contribs) (quick draft of table, will come back and detail ASAP) Next diff → |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| I'm not sure I see the pros and cons of the different choices. Could we create a summary table with Pros and Cons columns where we would list the different choices of licenses. -- [[User:FredericBaud|FredericBaud]] 14:43, 16 September 2007 (EDT) | I'm not sure I see the pros and cons of the different choices. Could we create a summary table with Pros and Cons columns where we would list the different choices of licenses. -- [[User:FredericBaud|FredericBaud]] 14:43, 16 September 2007 (EDT) | ||
| - | {| | + | {|border="1" |
| |- | |- | ||
| |+ Open Licenses: Pros and Cons | |+ Open Licenses: Pros and Cons | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| || License || CC || By Attribution || Share-Alike || Non-Commerical Use || Gnu Freedoc License || GnuFreedoc dual with CC BY SA || | || License || CC || By Attribution || Share-Alike || Non-Commerical Use || Gnu Freedoc License || GnuFreedoc dual with CC BY SA || | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| - | |Pros | + | |Pros || Widely recognized/Researched || Allows re-use, modification, gives reciprocation of recognition || Allows re-use, modification, and ensures that future generations of content shall remain in the "knowledge commons" || Allows for possible monetization of content/IP later || A widely adopted licesense, adds both "BY" and "SA" clauses (same pros and cons others? please list here) || Bridges compatability |
| |- | |- | ||
| - | |Cons | + | |Cons || May turn off some participants? || Exclusionary to those who do not want open re-use of content, with attribution clause || Exclusionary to those who do not want open re-use of content, with clause that derivatives must also share alike || restricts re-use to non-commericial purposes || Not compatible with other common open license schemes || otherwise, same "cons" as stand alone CC BY SA and GnuFeedoc |
| |} | |} | ||
Revision as of 16:03, 17 September 2007
Shall we continue to operate with CC BY SA license? I think we can also "Dual-license" to make conent compatible with GnFreedoc (so that it's compatible with Wikipedia, etc), similar to what http://aboutus.org has done: http://www.aboutus.org/AboutUs:Copyrights
Personally, I think we should address this for all content on all public sites, soon. That way there is no potential issue with newcomers down the road. --SamRose 13:13, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure I see the pros and cons of the different choices. Could we create a summary table with Pros and Cons columns where we would list the different choices of licenses. -- FredericBaud 14:43, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
| License | CC | By Attribution | Share-Alike | Non-Commerical Use | Gnu Freedoc License | GnuFreedoc dual with CC BY SA | |
| Pros | Widely recognized/Researched | Allows re-use, modification, gives reciprocation of recognition | Allows re-use, modification, and ensures that future generations of content shall remain in the "knowledge commons" | Allows for possible monetization of content/IP later | A widely adopted licesense, adds both "BY" and "SA" clauses (same pros and cons others? please list here) | Bridges compatability | |
| Cons | May turn off some participants? | Exclusionary to those who do not want open re-use of content, with attribution clause | Exclusionary to those who do not want open re-use of content, with clause that derivatives must also share alike | restricts re-use to non-commericial purposes | Not compatible with other common open license schemes | otherwise, same "cons" as stand alone CC BY SA and GnuFeedoc |
