P2PVenture.org's Wiki talk:Community Portal

From P2PVenture.org's Wiki

Revision as of 16:03, 17 September 2007 (edit) SamRose (Talk | contribs) (quick draft of table, will come back and detail ASAP) ← Previous diff		Revision as of 06:46, 18 September 2007 (edit) (undo) FredericBaud (Talk | contribs) (quesitons) Next diff →
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	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	+	Shall we continue to operate with CC BY SA license? I think we can also "Dual-license" to make content compatible with GnuFreedoc (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. --[[User:SamRose|SamRose]] 13:13, 16 September 2007 (EDT)		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. --[[User:SamRose|SamRose]] 13:13, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
Line 10:		Line 10:
	|+ Open Licenses: Pros and Cons		|+ Open Licenses: Pros and Cons
	|-		|-
-	|| 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-Commercial Use || GnuFreedoc 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	+	|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 license, adds both "BY" and "SA" clauses (same pros and cons others? please list here)<br>'''Make compatible with Wikipedia, if I understand your point above? What does it mean, cross-imports?''' -- [[User:FredericBaud|FredericBaud]] 02:46, 18 September 2007 (EDT) || Bridges compatibility
	|-		|-
-	|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	+	|Cons || May turn off some participants?<br>'''On which ground?''' -- [[User:FredericBaud|FredericBaud]] 02:46, 18 September 2007 (EDT) || 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-commercial purposes || Not compatible with other common open license schemes || otherwise, same "cons" as stand alone CC BY SA and GnuFeedoc
	|}		|}

---

Revision as of 06:46, 18 September 2007

Shall we continue to operate with CC BY SA license? I think we can also "Dual-license" to make content compatible with GnuFreedoc (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)

Open Licenses: Pros and Cons

License	CC	By Attribution	Share-Alike	Non-Commercial Use	GnuFreedoc 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 license, adds both "BY" and "SA" clauses (same pros and cons others? please list here) Make compatible with Wikipedia, if I understand your point above? What does it mean, cross-imports? -- FredericBaud 02:46, 18 September 2007 (EDT)	Bridges compatibility
Cons	May turn off some participants? On which ground? -- FredericBaud 02:46, 18 September 2007 (EDT)	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-commercial purposes	Not compatible with other common open license schemes	otherwise, same "cons" as stand alone CC BY SA and GnuFeedoc