Difference between revisions of "User talk:Gmartinengo"
From MormonWiki
(→Licensing Mormonwiki: More GFDL information) |
(→Licensing Mormonwiki: add clarification) |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
: Basically on the [[MormonWiki:Copyrights]] page you let people know they are contributing information under the GFDL. Additionally, on the edit screen - the text below the edit window - should be clear that by submitting it you are licensing it under the GFDL. The history function in the MediaWiki software provides proper attribution of the contributions as required by the GFDL - so nothing to do there. Also - you probably want to identify on the footer itself that the information is licensed under the GFDL. | : Basically on the [[MormonWiki:Copyrights]] page you let people know they are contributing information under the GFDL. Additionally, on the edit screen - the text below the edit window - should be clear that by submitting it you are licensing it under the GFDL. The history function in the MediaWiki software provides proper attribution of the contributions as required by the GFDL - so nothing to do there. Also - you probably want to identify on the footer itself that the information is licensed under the GFDL. | ||
| − | : Also we | + | : Also we would want to identify those articles that had content copied from [http://en.wikipedia.org wikipedia]] (though from what I can tell this may not be not required). I could make a template that one could add to any articles that has wikipedia material so that those articles that have work copied from there are clearly identified. You could do this so that it is small - I'll do a rough draft at [[Template:WP]] which then could be included on pages using <nowiki>{{</nowiki> the brace characters at the bottom of the text. I added it to this talk page so you can see how it would work. It is now added to this page [[User:Trödel|Trödel]]|<b>[[User talk:Trödel|talk]]</b> 11:29, 13 July 2006 (MDT) |
{{WP}} | {{WP}} | ||
Revision as of 10:29, 13 July 2006
Are we using Council or Quorum of the Twelve Apostles? Or both?
Licensing Mormonwiki
I think it is good. What should we do to use it? Also what do you know about creative commons license ?
Giuseppe
- Quickanswer: A creative commons license might be able to be used. My understanding is that it must be either Cc-by-sa, Cc-by, or Cc-sa. Though I think one would want the both the attribution and share alike properties. The other creative commons licenses will not work because they do not allow commercial use. There is some who would like to see the backers of GFDL and CC get together to have a common license or at least make sure they are as compatible as possible.
- More complete answer:
|
The GFDL[1] provides (in part):
Thus to comply with GFDL you have to have a notice in the copyright that the work includes or is derived from, in part, wikipedia, is licensed under the GFDL - and you cn add no other conditions. The creative commons Cc-by-sa[2] license says
As you can see they are very similar in that both require the "distributor/copier" to include a notice it is subject to the license, attribute the source and subject the completed work to a similar license. Generally Creative Commons licenses were intended for pictures, music, etc. (creative works) and the ... after distribute includes all these other types of rights protected under copyright law. GFDL has a history in software and documentation. I'll do some checking to make sure that a "Cc-by-sa" license would be acceptable, if that is a prefered license. |
Trödel|talk 15:49, 12 July 2006 (MDT)
Looks like I was wrong:
- "You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it."
The GFDL requires that it be distributed under the GFDL - so it looks like a Cc-by-sa work can be incorporated into a GFDL work but not the other way. Personally - after reading both licensese - the protect about equally - so I don't think it matters. Trödel|talk 15:54, 12 July 2006 (MDT)
Ok. So let us say that we go with GFDL. In practice what should we do? Just mention it in our site somewhere or we need to do more than this? Also, if we use this license it means that people can use our articles under this license an/or it allow us to use wikipedia articles?
G
- Answering the second question first - Both - licensing as GFDL allows us to copy and use (make derivative works of) any content licensed under the GFDL (or the Cc-by-sa, Cc-by, Cc-sa Creative Commons license - which means we can use pictures, sound, etc from http://commons.wikimedia.org) 'but it also means that all the content on MormonWiki can be copied by others as long as they comply with the same restrictions (the GFDL).
- This means that the work could be perverted. However, there is still a way to get some extra protection. You can do that by establishing a strong TRADEMARK for MormonWiki (or the More Good Foundation) so that those that want to claim more than the GFDL - like that the copy is made with the approval of MormonWiki - thus lending it some credibility - they would have to get permission to use the TRADEMARK - and so you can make sure the copied work retains some integrity to the work on this wiki.
- How to implement.
- Basically on the MormonWiki:Copyrights page you let people know they are contributing information under the GFDL. Additionally, on the edit screen - the text below the edit window - should be clear that by submitting it you are licensing it under the GFDL. The history function in the MediaWiki software provides proper attribution of the contributions as required by the GFDL - so nothing to do there. Also - you probably want to identify on the footer itself that the information is licensed under the GFDL.
- Also we would want to identify those articles that had content copied from wikipedia] (though from what I can tell this may not be not required). I could make a template that one could add to any articles that has wikipedia material so that those articles that have work copied from there are clearly identified. You could do this so that it is small - I'll do a rough draft at Template:WP which then could be included on pages using {{ the brace characters at the bottom of the text. I added it to this talk page so you can see how it would work. It is now added to this page Trödel|talk 11:29, 13 July 2006 (MDT)
