Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>]

>>>>> "BC" == Brad Collins <brad AT studiojungle.net> writes:

    Me> This seems way off-topic for cc-licenses.

    BC> Then let's bring it in topic -- what kind of licence should we
    BC> provide for forums.  Forums, like Wikis blurr the traditional
    BC> concept of publishing and copyright. Do any of the CC licences
    BC> fit?  If not, what kind of licence needs to be created that
    BC> does fit and what dangers are associated with other licence
    BC> models?

Better. Thank you.

For Wikitravel, we use the by-sa license. In my mind:

0. Wikitravel, the Web site, almost always acts as "You" for purposes
   of the license. We redistribute works created by Wikitravel
   contributors.

1. When someone creates a new page, they're releasing it under a by-sa
   license. Wikitravel saves, stores, and redisplays the page under
   the rights granted us by the author through that license.

2. When someone edits a page, they're creating a Derivative Work
   (however teensy the change). The DW is also under by-sa, and
   Wikitravel saves, stores, redisplays, distributes, etc. under that
   license's terms, with the editor as the new "Licensor".

   It may in fact be fair to include the editor's changes (a
   punctuation or spelling correction) under fair use/fair dealing,
   but it's easier to be uniform. Also, I don't want to have to write
   the software that says whether a change was minor or "fair".

We still have to do some work to make sure we're in compliance with
by-sa as "You". I think our changelogs are good for most of it,
although they're lost in our printable versions.

As far as forums are concerned, they're different from wikis in that
only the original creator -- if anyone -- can edit a posting. It seems
like by or by-nd should be sufficient. 

~ESP

-- 
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide