Any Objections to matching wikipedia.org's CC license?
If so, note them here by January 1, 2012. I am interested in changing the documentation license of MarsPedia to better integrate existing content from sites like Wikipedia.
- The purpose of the GFDL namespace was to allow imported articles from Wikipedia. A new namespace could be created to allow integration with wikipedia's present licence and other creative commons sources-- or alternatively -- the main namespace could be thrown open to mixed licence content and require a tag on each article to clarify. There is also an existing Creative Commons namespace (originally intended for riginal content from authors who objected to posting to the public domain. I've never seen any actual contributor object -- at least, possibly, until now) that if unused could be repurposed for this task. It's only been used once at Lunarpedia, and that was by mistake...
- I for one have an objection to turning public domain content into content under a more restrictive licence. This would also have the effect of throwing a very large, heavy spanner at integration with Lunarpedia and the other wikis. I'm sorry that I didn't see this topic before.
- If this change is already in operation, I would like to propose a creation of a public domain namespace, and repatriation of all public domain content that's not intermingled with licenced content there. -- Strangelv 09:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Given the lack of additional comment, I intend to work to clearly restore the original public domain status on this wiki. The articles that have ambiguity have already been identified, and if anyone who has contributed after 31 December 2011 could clarify their willingness to contribute such edits to the public domain it would help significantly.
- I have a solution for handling Wikipedia-based content in the main namespace that has actually been in use for six years on LPedia.org -- but any major change to the terms of Marspedia should probably involve a process involving the organizations with a stake in this wiki.
- My proposal is that edits are by default released to the public domain, but that this may be overridden by the inclusion of a licence tag that identifies the licence, its version, and the specifics of its terms. It may be of value to specify rules for who may change the licence, especially in the case of anonymous cortributors who will normally be impossible to track down to secure authorizations from.
- Strangelv 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)