I'd like to suggest the possibility that using a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license for everything on wiki.GALBIJIM would be a good idea. It is the license I chose for my own similarly purposed wiki, wikigogy.org. Here's why I think "by-sa" is the right license for this kind of wiki. Just my thoughts, including how allowing commercial use is a good thing. A wiki is designed for pages to be edited by multiple users. Having a single cohereant copyleft for the whole wiki simplifies things and facilitates collaboration. I suggest reading also Evan Prodromou's explanation of why "by-sa" for the Wikitravel wiki. --Rogerhc :-) 08:16, 1 August 2006 (CEST)
- That's a bit of a coincidence - that's what we've been looking at doing. We were thinking about making that CC license minus commercial use the default, but also to allow multi-licensing if other users feel like licensing their edits under a different type. There will probably be an announcement and/or a vote on that in a week or two. I think the only major debate would be as to whether commercial use should be permitted or not. mithridates aka 데이빛 13:18, 1 August 2006 (CEST)
- Allowing a user to post with another license instead of the one you choose will not work unless the alternate license is explicitly designed to be compatible. Allowing the user to publish with multiple licenses makes more sense. Sometimes I think it would be easier to put everything under public domain. --Dogshed 05:28, 29 August 2006 (CEST)
- Since this site is not GFDL all the stuff from wikipedia will have to be removed. I'm not sure how you can make it work.--Dogshed 05:42, 29 August 2006 (CEST)
Please see Multi-licensing on Wikipedia for how it works. This site is GFDL by default. mithridates aka 데이빛 05:59, 29 August 2006 (CEST)
Instead of "Certain authors may wish to license their work under the Creative Commons 2.5 license" maybe it should say something like, "Certain authors making a contribution to Galbijim may wish to dual license their work under the Creative Commons 2.5 license in addition to the GFDL"
This explicitly states that it is not an alternative license but an additional license. --Dogshed 00:00, 4 September 2006 (CEST)
GFDL and copyright
In disclaimer I think you should explicitly say that all contributions are under the GFDL. Something like, "All contributions to the Galbijim wiki are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License." --Dogshed 00:07, 4 September 2006 (CEST)
All of the wikipedia pages have "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)" at the bottom of every page. Maybe Disclaimers should be renamed Disclaimers and copyrights?
While everything is under copyright once it is created, stating copyright with a date does give you some legal advantages.
I found this on wikipedia: "However, notice of copyright (using these marks) does have consequences in terms of allowable damages in an infringement lawsuit in some places." --Dogshed 23:53, 3 September 2006 (CEST)
Project:Copyrights link at the bottom of the edit window was going to to a blank page. I tried to redirect it to the Disclaimers page but it isn't working for me. --Dogshed 00:22, 4 September 2006 (CEST)