Difference between revisions of "Robowiki talk:Copyrights"
(voting?) |
Darkcanuck (talk | contribs) (what little I know) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Well, I think old robowiki license under [[RWPCL]] =P Just kidding. Why don't we voted for a license? GFDL, CC-BY-SA and PD. » <span style="font-size:0.9em;color:darkgreen;">[[User:Nat|Nat]] | [[User_talk:Nat|Talk]]</span> » 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | Well, I think old robowiki license under [[RWPCL]] =P Just kidding. Why don't we voted for a license? GFDL, CC-BY-SA and PD. » <span style="font-size:0.9em;color:darkgreen;">[[User:Nat|Nat]] | [[User_talk:Nat|Talk]]</span> » 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm not a lawyer, but by default copyright belongs to the original author of the work, whether or not they choose to display a "(c)" or other copyright notice. If you want your work to fall under some other type of arrangement like CC, GFDL or public domain, it needs to be explicitly stated. What the wiki needs is a policy that says all contributions will fall under a certain license and then link that somewhere in the footer. And having an option for authors to put in their own license in one of those nifty templates if they want. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Personally, I'd prefer that the wiki remain very open and avoid "radioactive" licenses. I think most people here (and on the old wiki) contributed freely, probably expecting nothing more than attribution if their content was re-used. --[[User:Darkcanuck|Darkcanuck]] 03:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:05, 13 May 2009
Hey guys. I'm wonder which is the license for the content from this site? Is it Public Domain, GFDL, CC or what? » Nat | Talk » 14:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually don't know. I might've thought it was Public Domain, but this Wikipedia page makes me think otherwise. I'm not sure there's an easy answer to that question, actually. (And of course, IANAL.) --Voidious 15:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What make you think otherwise? I think he hasn't chose license yet when he install MediaWiki, because the only way that there is no license metadata at the bottom of page (in yellow box) is to chose "No license metadata" or "Creative Commons License" in "Copyright/License" section of MediaWiki installer.
I really think it is a time to chose a license for this wiki. If we use Public Domain, we are not allowed to copy content from Wikipedia (GFDL != Public Domain).
(Anyway IANAL too) » Nat | Talk » 15:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, we could all agree now on a license to use for new content. (I actually installed MediaWiki, but it was a while ago and I can't remember giving much thought to this at the time.) But the people that posted content to the old wiki, which we are migrating over, did not agree to that license, and they were posting from different countries all over the world that might have different copyright laws, so I'm just not sure how all of that ties together.
Does anyone else have some knowledge of all this?
--Voidious 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think old robowiki license under RWPCL =P Just kidding. Why don't we voted for a license? GFDL, CC-BY-SA and PD. » Nat | Talk » 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer, but by default copyright belongs to the original author of the work, whether or not they choose to display a "(c)" or other copyright notice. If you want your work to fall under some other type of arrangement like CC, GFDL or public domain, it needs to be explicitly stated. What the wiki needs is a policy that says all contributions will fall under a certain license and then link that somewhere in the footer. And having an option for authors to put in their own license in one of those nifty templates if they want.
Personally, I'd prefer that the wiki remain very open and avoid "radioactive" licenses. I think most people here (and on the old wiki) contributed freely, probably expecting nothing more than attribution if their content was re-used. --Darkcanuck 03:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
