Wiki license 0.5 beta

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Sat Mar 26 22:42:02 EST 2005


On Saturday 26 March 2005 12:38 pm, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> So, I note from the Creative Commons Weblog:
>
>         http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5344
>
> ...that there's a new draft license for wikis:
>
>         http://creativecommons.org/drafts/wiki_0.5
>
> It's supposed to be under discussion on this list, which it is not. In
> fact, the description of this list says that our _purpose_ is to discuss
> it!
>
>         http://creativecommons.org/discuss#license
>
> It's already been put in use for the Code v2 wiki:
>
>         http://codebook.jot.com/WikiHome
>
> And there's even a nifty CC-Wiki graphic emblem:
>
>         http://codebook.jot.com/WikiHome/SiteStyles/cc-wiki.gif
>
> I've made a plain text version available for review here:
>
>         http://bad.dynu.ca/~evan/ccpl-wiki-0.5.txt
>
> I've attached a patch from the by-sa-2.0 to wiki-0.5 to the end of this
> message, just to show the changes.
>
> My main comments on the licence: it's not clear to me that Wiki 0.5
> works can be combined or re-licenced as Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 works
> (or vice versa). Either the Attribution licence element for Wiki 0.5
> needs to be renamed, or there has to be some clarity in the ShareAlike
> licence element that *anything* that Creative Commons calls
> "Attribution" is compatible. I think having "Attribution" licence
> elements with different wording and requirements in different licences
> is a recipe for serious confusion.
>
> My meta-comment on the licence: eeeewwwwwwww. I don't see denying
> contributors credit for their work as some kind of wiki optimization. I
> have a hard time seeing it as a benefit at all, actually. Stripping away
> the last bit of incentive for contributions -- Eric Raymond calls it
> "ego boo" -- seems pretty wrongheaded, if not just plain stingy.
>
> I don't want Wikitravel to use this license.
>
> ~Evan
>
> ---8<---diff-begin--8<---
> 2,3c2,3
> <                           Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0
> <
> ---
>
> >                Wiki License -- Attribution-ShareAlike 0.5 (beta)
>
> 159,166c159,171
> <      You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the
> <      Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are
> utilizing <      by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the
> Original Author <      if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to
> the extent reasonably <      practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier,
> if any, that Licensor <      specifies to be associated with the Work,
> unless such URI does not refer <      to the copyright notice or licensing
> information for the Work; and in the <      case of a Derivative Work, a
> credit identifying the use of the Work in the ---
>
> >      You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give
> > credit, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing, either (i)
> > to the Original Author, or (ii) if the Licensor designates another party
> > or parties (e.g., a sponsor institution or publishing entity) for
> > attribution in Licensor's copyright notice or terms of service or by
> > other reasonable means, then to such party or parties. In either case, to
> > give such credit You must convey: the name (or pseudonym if applicable)
> > of the Original Author or any designated party or parties (as
> > applicable), if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the
> > extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any,
> > that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI
> > does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the
> > Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use
> > of the Work in the
>
> ---8<---diff-end---8<---

OK, here is another try from the diff...

Is this the part that people are having a problem with?

> > -or (ii) if the Licensor designates another party
> > or parties (e.g., a sponsor institution or publishing entity) for
> > attribution in Licensor's copyright notice or terms of service or by
> > other reasonable means, then to such party or parties.

I think people have been responding to this as if it says the "Original 
Author" (means the individual or entity who created the Work.) can designate 
another party.

Whereas it says the "Licensor" (means the individual or entity that offers the 
Work under the terms of this License.) designates the other party.

A few questions...

Since this is a wiki license, is the "Original Author" the person who put up 
the wiki?

Are the "Licensors" the individual contributors? Or is the "Licensor" also the 
person who put up the wiki?

If the "Licensor" is an individual contributor, would the objections go away 
or be lessened? If this is the case, wouldn't this just mean that if I 
contributed a section to the wiki, I could require you to give my patron 
credit instead of me?

If the "Licensor" is an individual contributor, then a person can be a 
"Licensor" with one hat and a "You" (means an individual or entity exercising 
rights under this License who has not previously violated the terms of this 
License with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from 
the Licensor to exercise rights under this License despite a previous 
violation.) with another.

Can someone on the inside give an answer as to what the license is intended to 
mean in this area?

all the best,

drew



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list