Site talk:Copyrights

I'd like help in creating a license for this site. I'm not happy with the creative commons licenses or the gnu free documentation license. More on that below. Maybe we will go with one of those after you help me understand why my concerns are unfounded. --Matthewfaulconer 08:13, 11 Mar 2005 (CET)

Current criteria for a license

• The license gives broad access to others to modify the content without being too picky about citing the author. Since anyone can edit anyone else's work figuring out which part are whose is not trivial. Further, at some point in the future the site may decide to limit the amount of history. I don't think there should be a legal obligation to keep online history. --Matthewfaulconer 08:13, 11 Mar 2005 (CET)
• The license should allow some trusted group of people to change the terms of the license in the future. I'm thinking of what apache does. --Matthewfaulconer 08:13, 11 Mar 2005 (CET)

Questions

• Should the license allow commercial use?

I don't think so. --Matthewfaulconer 08:13, 11 Mar 2005 (CET)

What about the gnu free documentation license?

• I don't really understand how a wiki can use this. Clearly they do. And it seems to work. But to me the requirement to give attribution seems onerous for a wiki since an article is edited by so many people. If the requirement is fulfilled by history, this seems to me to require the wiki site to always keep all history. That's doesn't seem like a requirement the site should have. --Matthewfaulconer 08:13, 11 Mar 2005 (CET)

What about one of the creative commons licenses?

• I have the same concern here about the requirements to give attribution. Of course, you can choose not to require attribution. I don't like the fact though that the creative commons is making the licenses they provide that don't require attribution hard to find. Do they not want them to be used?