1. Welcome to the new MacRumors forums. See our announcement and read our FAQ

The Mac Guides Licensing Thread!

Discussion in 'Mac Guides' started by hyperpasta, Oct 30, 2005.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    hyperpasta

    #1
    Use this thread to debate which licensing scheme arn should use for the Mac Guides! My pick is the GNU Documentation License for Intercopyability from/to the Wikimedia projects. It would be very valuable to both Wikimedia and the Macrumors Guides if we could build on each other... there WILL be overlap betwwen the two (see my sig for proof).
     
  2. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    #2
  3. macrumors 68020

    dubbz

    #3
    If I'm reading the documentation list on the GNU site correctly, then any of the Creative Commons licenses could be incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation License.

    Seeing as how Wikipedia use the GNU FDL, I think it whould be most practical to go with that one.
     
  4. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    #4
    yep... I think we'll go with the GNU one

    arn
     
  5. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    #5
    A dual license is a valid option too, and would avoid a lot of trouble with borrowing information between projects.

    For example, for the garbage I pour into Wikipedia from time to time:
    Could something like that be used site-wide here?
     
  6. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    #6
    Hmm...

    you have any thoughts on the disadvantages of various licenses?

    I don't mind people creating derivative works.

    arn
     
  7. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    #7
    The most onerous part of GFDL is the part about listing credits, and the GFDL itself is supposed to be included in each text :p (even Wikipedia doesn't technically comply with that part, it's a link) Technically, articles copied here from Wikimedia projects are in violation of that unless the list of contributors is grabbed from their edit history and added here too (perhaps as a comment). In practice, Wikimedia are happy with a link back to them and the original article, but it's understood that they're playing loose with their own license terms by doing that (this business where they have trouble following the terms of their own license is the main reason there are sometimes regrets about choosing it). Another problem with GFDL material is that it can't be incorporated into CC works unless all authors involved in that part of the work also agree to a CC-compatible license (which is why I do that). At this writing, the iBook article at guides.macrumors.com is violating that license (and I'll fix that, since I'm bringing it up); it's a pain.

    The CC licenses are a bit less weird. For example, CC Attribution is short and simple; only requires noting what license and authors are involved, with no other restrictions. It's a low-hassle license all around, pretty much the same as the MIT or new-style BSD. The one major exception is GFDL projects; they can be wary of mixing even if in practice things will be hunky dory.

    That's where the multiple licenses come in handy. Each other project can pick the "open" license that's compatible with what it is doing, the authors are entitled to credit under any of the options (and each project can decide how much red tape it wants to handle).
     
  8. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    #8
    Thanks... I saw the links. Does that cover it for those pages?

    Note, your usergroup got upgraded...

    arn
     
  9. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    #9
    Also, so you're suggesting that we can use the CreativeCommons for most articles but the GPL when needed for articles which use GPL content?

    arn
     
  10. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    #10
    Yes, terms like "Unless otherwise indicated, all text is available under the terms of $WHATEVER_LICENSE." are fine. Just as long as we're good about crediting leeched material, people who want to reuse will know where they stand. There is already a slew of fair-use images in there, so there's no point in trying to be purist about One True License.

    Thanks for the note about the status flag; I was afraid I broke something again :D
     
  11. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    #11
    Thoughts about this license?

    http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/

    I was most comfortable with that one, but is more restricting than the one you pointed out.

    arn
     

Share This Page