P2PVenture.org's Wiki talk:Community Portal
From P2PVenture.org's Wiki
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)
| 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 |
