Wikikernel/Licensing
| Wikikernel |
|---|
|
Project proposal Discussion Older proposals |
As Wikikernel may be used for hosting new projects that may not use the GFDL, it is appropriate to discuss under what terms the content developed for Wikikernel may be subsequently reused.
GFDL
edit- Pros
- Content generated at other Wikimedia projects can be move here as a simple transwiki.
- License used by all Wikimedia projects except Wikinews.
- Cons
- Highly restrictive terms. If a new project proposal decides for a more liberal license, all of the content may have to be rewritten from scratch, or require constant reminders that all of the content is dual licensed during the "beta" stage while it is on Wikikernel.
Public Domain
edit- Pros
- Allows maximum flexability for new projects to be developed under whatever terms they may want to develop the content, even "putting off" trying to decide in licensing terms until much later, such as with Wikinews.
- Cons
- Transwiki of content to Wikikernel would be impossible. All content added to Wikikernel would have to be mostly original content brand new to any Wikimedia project, including potentially templates and "standard" items on most Wikimedia projects.
- It may not be legally possible for some Wikimedia user to contribute, or might cause some legal issues for content added from countries that don't recognize material in the public domain from living authors.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY)
edit- Pros
- Resolves some of the legal issues surrounding copyright and the public domain. Content is copyrighted, but licensed under "free document" license standards.
- This license is what Wikinews currently uses.
- Cons
- Transwiki of content from other Wikimedia projects may not be possible unless explicit permission from all participants who have contributed content agree.
- There is potential confusion with other Creative Commons licenses, such as CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike) and various NonCommerical and NoDerivs licenses.