Full Version: CZ Seeks Essays on License Choice.
This posting on wikien-l forwards a call from Larry Sanger for essays relating to the choice of license to be used by CZ. I am not sure that this is the best way to proceed but at least they seem to be giving some thought to the issue. It is possible to improve on the GFDL which was created for an entirely different purpose (software manuals) by an organization know for it inflexible and dogmatic approach (Free Software Foundation.)
Ewww essays. I remember those in school. They're pieces of writing grades on stupid things and essays are things nobody wants to write or read. They should just have proposals instead.
So far, there's no essays. So what are good licensing schemes for wikis?
So far, there's no essays. So what are good licensing schemes for wikis?
I like essays. What I hate doing is writing encyclopaedia-style articles. There's a difference. I write essays for fun on lots of topics.
As for the choice of license, I guess that there are several elements to consider:
a) Do they want to eventually make a profit from it
If they don't want to make a profit from it, do they want to prohibit others from making a profit from it
c) Do they want others to be able to take credit for what you did
With that in mind, you don't need to say "Copyleft is good" etc, because ultimately you just define what you want first, and then if no license type exists, then make up your own based on what you want. Hence it is not so much a choice as a philosophy.
As for the choice of license, I guess that there are several elements to consider:
a) Do they want to eventually make a profit from it
If they don't want to make a profit from it, do they want to prohibit others from making a profit from itc) Do they want others to be able to take credit for what you did
With that in mind, you don't need to say "Copyleft is good" etc, because ultimately you just define what you want first, and then if no license type exists, then make up your own based on what you want. Hence it is not so much a choice as a philosophy.
With that in mind, I will give you my thoughts on what I think that they should do.
What License should Citizendium use?
Citizendium (http://www.citizendium.org/) is yet to decide on what license to use for its own product. Wikipedia, which Citizendium is trying to improve upon, is available under the GNU Free Documentation license. Another option is the standard copyright that is used for most forms of written product. Variations of these licenses could be used, or any of a number of other products. Alternatively, Citizendium could choose its own license type, based on its own unique aims.
One of the main reasons why copyright exists is to protect against plagiarism, of people using your ideas to make profit for themselves. People can copyright products regardless of whether they intend to use them for profit, and regardless of whether it is currently used for profit. Copyright exists as a protection, rather than as a guarantee for profit. The question that is usually asked is whether copyright exists for the author of the product or for the company that they represent, or both. In the case of Citizendium, an argument could be made that Citizendium owns the finished product, but that individual authors own the part of the product that they themselves contribute. In other words, if a person is the sole author of a piece, then they are solely responsible for it, whilst if several people write it then several people are responsible. This would be relevant both for any profit purposes in addition to any legal liabilities. Similar copyright issues exist for blogs and personal web pages.
If Citizendium were to use something similar to a standard copyright agreement, then we can envisage what may happen in a given situation. In the case of any libelous statements being made, Citizendium would be responsible for removing the offensive material, and if they failed to do so then they would be liable, whilst the person who made the libelous statements themselves would individually be liable. In the case of anyone wanting to write a book or for-profit venture, they could ask Citizendium for permission, however if they were the sole author themselves, then they would not need to ask permission. The difficulty could exist in marginal cases for example when a person authors 99% of an article, and then someone else makes a spelling correction, yet the primary author wants to suggest that it is their own work.
Wikipedia's GNU Free Document license is an alternative to the standard copyright agreement that is used for book documents, and could be considered for Citizendium as it is a similar product. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tex...ntation_License, GNU is a license that does not attribute any kind of ownership over anything, either to Wikipedia or to any of its contributors. It is a license that encourages people to create things "for the world" and "owned by the world". Any document released under GNU can be copied by anyone else without permission - including being copied for assignment papers at any school. One major problem with it is that it does not prevent someone else from using the products for profit themselves, for example using Google AdSense. It is in many ways a dishonest system, and if Citizendium aims to be a better product than Wikipedia, then Citizendium cannot accept this license.
What Citizendium needs to decide, first and foremost, is if it wishes to own what it creates, or have its contributors own the product, or a combination of both, or neither. Citizendium, first and foremost, is a non profit enterprise, hence it would seem that it does not want ownership, however they may still want to own it. Do they want to allow for the complicated aspects of someone else owning it? Do they want people to be able to attribute ownership over it? Do they want all of the inevitable legal battles when someone has written 90% of it and wants to assert ownership over an article?
Ultimately, if Citizendium is aiming to be a professional product, then they should work as a professional product would work, and that is to use real world copyright laws for their own product. Use these laws as they are applicable and relevant to Citizendium, and in accordance with what Citizendium aims to be. Do not worry about GNU or any other kind of internet license, and do not worry about whatever Wikipedia may or may not have done.
© Blissyu2, 16 September 2007
What License should Citizendium use?
Citizendium (http://www.citizendium.org/) is yet to decide on what license to use for its own product. Wikipedia, which Citizendium is trying to improve upon, is available under the GNU Free Documentation license. Another option is the standard copyright that is used for most forms of written product. Variations of these licenses could be used, or any of a number of other products. Alternatively, Citizendium could choose its own license type, based on its own unique aims.
One of the main reasons why copyright exists is to protect against plagiarism, of people using your ideas to make profit for themselves. People can copyright products regardless of whether they intend to use them for profit, and regardless of whether it is currently used for profit. Copyright exists as a protection, rather than as a guarantee for profit. The question that is usually asked is whether copyright exists for the author of the product or for the company that they represent, or both. In the case of Citizendium, an argument could be made that Citizendium owns the finished product, but that individual authors own the part of the product that they themselves contribute. In other words, if a person is the sole author of a piece, then they are solely responsible for it, whilst if several people write it then several people are responsible. This would be relevant both for any profit purposes in addition to any legal liabilities. Similar copyright issues exist for blogs and personal web pages.
If Citizendium were to use something similar to a standard copyright agreement, then we can envisage what may happen in a given situation. In the case of any libelous statements being made, Citizendium would be responsible for removing the offensive material, and if they failed to do so then they would be liable, whilst the person who made the libelous statements themselves would individually be liable. In the case of anyone wanting to write a book or for-profit venture, they could ask Citizendium for permission, however if they were the sole author themselves, then they would not need to ask permission. The difficulty could exist in marginal cases for example when a person authors 99% of an article, and then someone else makes a spelling correction, yet the primary author wants to suggest that it is their own work.
Wikipedia's GNU Free Document license is an alternative to the standard copyright agreement that is used for book documents, and could be considered for Citizendium as it is a similar product. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tex...ntation_License, GNU is a license that does not attribute any kind of ownership over anything, either to Wikipedia or to any of its contributors. It is a license that encourages people to create things "for the world" and "owned by the world". Any document released under GNU can be copied by anyone else without permission - including being copied for assignment papers at any school. One major problem with it is that it does not prevent someone else from using the products for profit themselves, for example using Google AdSense. It is in many ways a dishonest system, and if Citizendium aims to be a better product than Wikipedia, then Citizendium cannot accept this license.
What Citizendium needs to decide, first and foremost, is if it wishes to own what it creates, or have its contributors own the product, or a combination of both, or neither. Citizendium, first and foremost, is a non profit enterprise, hence it would seem that it does not want ownership, however they may still want to own it. Do they want to allow for the complicated aspects of someone else owning it? Do they want people to be able to attribute ownership over it? Do they want all of the inevitable legal battles when someone has written 90% of it and wants to assert ownership over an article?
Ultimately, if Citizendium is aiming to be a professional product, then they should work as a professional product would work, and that is to use real world copyright laws for their own product. Use these laws as they are applicable and relevant to Citizendium, and in accordance with what Citizendium aims to be. Do not worry about GNU or any other kind of internet license, and do not worry about whatever Wikipedia may or may not have done.
© Blissyu2, 16 September 2007
A couple of simple ideas:
- Direct release into public domain with no restrictions whatsoever.
- Simplified attribution only: Any user, republisher or modifier of the content needs only to reference to site, article and date of the content used. Additional information/attribution could be derived from the the articles history on CZ.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.