P2PVenture.org's Wiki talk:Community Portal

From P2PVenture.org's Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
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)
-{|class="wikitable"+{|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)

Open Licenses: Pros and Cons
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
Personal tools