Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

acawiki-general - Re: [acawiki-general] [Wiki-research-l] New version of Wikipedia review.

acawiki-general AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Acawiki-general mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT gondwanaland.com>
  • To: jschneider AT pobox.com
  • Cc: Neeru Paharia <neerupaharia AT gmail.com>, Finn Årup Nielsen <fn AT imm.dtu.dk>, "AcaWiki general \(listserv\)" <acawiki-general AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [acawiki-general] [Wiki-research-l] New version of Wikipedia review.
  • Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:52:41 -0700

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 04:53, Jodi Schneider <jschneider AT pobox.com> wrote:
CC-BY is less restrictive. Unless you are opposed to potential commercialization of your work, CC-BY is better than CC-BY-SA, in the sense that it makes reuse easier. CC-BY is, of course, worse if you prefer copyleft licenses! :)

There are reasons to use copyleft besides preventing commercialization (which copyleft licenses don't do direction, though they can be a deterrent in some cases). :)
 
 
Have you given any thought as to why
you selected CC-by and not CC-by-sa?

The license was already chosen when I got involved.  Neeru, Mike, Greg, any comments?

I think Neeru chose it, or it was a condition of the small Hewlett grant that got Neeru started, or it is defaulty in OA world that AcaWiki complements most obviously (it has been a long haul toward the wiki world), or some combination thereof.

 
I suppose CC-by is practically the
standard among researchers, while CC-by-sa stems from Wikimedia
Foundation inspired projects.

CC-BY-SA is pretty recent in Wikimedia:

Though copyleft isn't.

i don't have an opinion on whether BY or BY-SA is more appropriate for AcaWiki, though it is an entirely safe bet that the question will come up regularly.

Mike

p.s. Awesome re importing/collaboration, much more exciting than license nuance. :)



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page