WikiEducator talk:Licensing Policy

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search

GFDL is philosophically compatible with CC-BY-SA - but legally incompatible. I'm wondering whether we shouldn't explore the implications of dual FDL and CC-BY-SA licensing? - additional transaction cost, but assuming compatibility is resolved in the future - this may be worth considering. --Mackiwg 03:43, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

While I didn't want to change this in the policy in progress without something closer to consensus, I'm leery of allowing something incompatible with CC-BY-SA absent a compelling reason. It's already a problem in the movement for there to be separate silos of content, we shouldn't have that situation within our own space. --SteveFoerster 21:47, 8 July 2007 (CEST)

Now what if the policy would state that: 1. By default content on WikiEd it will be CC-BY-SA. My contributions, (singly as extracted from the diff page, and out of context) to ANY page are by default CC-BY-SA. 2. An author may declare (by using a specified template/namespace) a NEW page to be PD or CC-BY. My contributions, (singly as extracted from the diff page, and out of context) are still CC-BY-SA. BUT the Page as a whole (like when extracted as pdf) is according to declared licence (this is per article and its sub-pages only) 3. An authour may declare in his/her user page that their contributions to ANY page (singly as extracted from the diff page, and out of context) to be PD or CC-BY, but without prejudice to the licence for the page as a whole. 4. Changing the licence of a page would require the page to be Moved/Deleted, and re-created, thus establishing a clear demarcation in the History line. 5. Users are STRONGY recommended to use the default licence, unless they are fully capable of managing Licence conflicts or other users who might contribute to that content.

In essence I'm proposing the idea that the page as a single unit and the individual bits of content contributed by individual users are essentially different sets of content and thus can by licensed differently. Does this make any legal sense whatsoever? I think it is plausible because if one where to take a single users contributions and compare them to the whole article, while the content might be related it will be fundamentally distinct. (BTW deletions and minor changes are not to be considered)

--Phsi 09:01, 10 July 2007 (CEST)


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Licensing screenshots023:08, 21 October 2011

Licensing screenshots

While uploading a screenshot I could not select (e.g.) GPL as a license option.

In general, does WE need to do something similar (adapted) to

including related pages such as :

Or can we simply adopt all of their policies?

I was thinking of creating an equivalent of Wikipedia's Free screenshot template - but it seems to involve 24 templates and will take some time and effort - unless anyone knows of a quick way of importing templates from Wikipedia?

The obvious workaround is to upload images and other media files to (or, ..., etc.)


KTucker (talk)23:06, 21 October 2011