Archive:Should we use GFDL or CC-by-sa for CZ-originated articles?: Difference between revisions
imported>Luke Brandt (→Negative: use CC-BY-SA: GFDL forces silly constraints, even of publicity material given away for free) |
imported>Luke Brandt (→Negative: use CC-BY-SA: global perspective, and all WP is not GFDL in any case.) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
= Negative: use CC-BY-SA = | = Negative: use CC-BY-SA = | ||
The GFDL is an old clunky licence which was never really intended for something like an encyclopedia. It requires redistributors to jump through annoying hoops to use content. CC-BY-SA is more flexible and more easily understood. The [[GFDL]] has been the ultimate cause of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Fair_Use_in_Wesley_Clark.E2.80.8E considerable acrimony] between some [[Wikipedia]] editors because of the constraint forced on usage in Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elimination_of_Fair_Use_Rationale_in_Promotional_Photos/Vote even of publicity material which is given away freely]. It should prove possible to avoid these pitfalls by developing a ''sensible'' thought-through policy for ourselves, and avoid the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:BoyGeorge.jpg angst] amongst [[Wikipedians]] striving to obey the latest diktat. | The GFDL is an old clunky licence which was never really intended for something like an encyclopedia. It requires redistributors to jump through annoying hoops to use content. CC-BY-SA is more flexible and more easily understood. The [[GFDL]] has been the ultimate cause of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Fair_Use_in_Wesley_Clark.E2.80.8E considerable acrimony] between some [[Wikipedia]] editors because of the constraint forced on usage in Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elimination_of_Fair_Use_Rationale_in_Promotional_Photos/Vote even of publicity material which is given away freely]. It should prove possible to avoid these pitfalls by developing a ''sensible'' thought-through policy for ourselves, and avoid the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:BoyGeorge.jpg angst] amongst [[Wikipedians]] striving to obey the latest diktat. | ||
[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3 CC Version 3] has been drafted with a focussed [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#Further_Internationalization global perspective]. The status of material within Wikipedia is in dispute even among some article editors themselves, so we cannot import articles without giving careful ''independent'' consideration to copyright matters in any case. | |||
Revision as of 01:28, 31 March 2007
Policy argument summary started March 26, 2007
The issue explained neutrally
At issue is the question whether the GFDL licence should be used for articles originating on Citizendium.
Affirmative: use only GFDL
To maintain compabitility with Wikipedia it is by far easiest to use GFDL throughout because it is the licence Wikipedia uses for all its text. If we use GFDL for Wikipedia-originating articles and another licence for CZ-originating articles then we will be unable to move content between those two types. Moving paragraphs between articles is frequently a very useful natural thing to do when working with a wiki, for example when merging articles. Making it impossible to do this will frustrate and confuse editors not interested in subtle legal issues.
Negative: use CC-BY-SA
The GFDL is an old clunky licence which was never really intended for something like an encyclopedia. It requires redistributors to jump through annoying hoops to use content. CC-BY-SA is more flexible and more easily understood. The GFDL has been the ultimate cause of considerable acrimony between some Wikipedia editors because of the constraint forced on usage in Wikipedia, even of publicity material which is given away freely. It should prove possible to avoid these pitfalls by developing a sensible thought-through policy for ourselves, and avoid the angst amongst Wikipedians striving to obey the latest diktat.
CC Version 3 has been drafted with a focussed global perspective. The status of material within Wikipedia is in dispute even among some article editors themselves, so we cannot import articles without giving careful independent consideration to copyright matters in any case.