The License

[arn]

This is still up for debate, but this one looks good to me:

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

You are free:

to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
to make derivative works
Under the following conditions:

Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

----

I know some people are proponents of the GFPL, but I think the creative commons license is clear and to the point.

The advantage of the GFPL is that stuff can be freely copied from the main wikipedia. I'm not sure if that is a big advantage. I don't think forking their articles is necessarily the best way to go. We've used GFPL material with licensing linked. See: http://guides.macrumors.com/Gil_Amelio

I think the point of the Creatine Commons licensing is it protects the MacRumors community, but also allows the information to be used freely.

thoughts?

arn

 

[arn]

anyone?

 

[Diatribe]

I think creative commons is perfectly fine. I don't see the need to copy a lot from Wikipedia either and the content can still be used freely if you adhere to the rules of attributions... I think it's a good one to use.

 

[wordmunger]

Cool. I definitely agree that this is a good idea. The only problem with a CC license is that someone whose post was copied from the forums might not agree with the license.

Maybe when a post is copied from the forums, we should PM the original poster to let them know...

 

[dubbz]

anyone?

I love that it's available in a Human Readable version

Anyway, looks good to me. Will this have any effect on the material currently in the guide? Either way, it looks like a better license if we don't care about Wikipedia (and I must confess that after the first article got dumped straight into the guide I somewhat wished we couldn't do that).

 

[dubbz]

Maybe when a post is copied from the forums, we should PM the original poster to let them know...

Yes, we should do that.

 

[arn]

we need to be consistent.

If someone does take content from Wiki, we need to link it with the wikipedia license.

there's a template for this.

{{Wikipedia|title=WIKIPEDIA_ARTICLE_TITLE}}

and adds the appropraite link.

arn

 

[iMeowbot]

I could live with that, just as long as people are clear that their contributions to articles tagged with the Wikipedia template fall under GFDL instead. I was thinking to add a little note to the Wikipedia template so that the exceptions don't take people by surprise. Does that seem reasonable?