On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 12:14:15PM +0000, Kate L Pugh wrote:
I really think
we can't afford to put this issue off any longer.
Well volunteered that man.
I was *this* ---> [ ] close to adding in the previous message "...and if
I don't get any replies to this I am going to JFDI on London and let the
other sites' administrators cope with it".
I'm only posting to say that I trust Earle's
judgement on copyright
and licensing issues, so will be happy to go with whatever solution he
comes up with - but I don't care that much, so I'm also happy to stick
with the status quo, if no action ever comes of this talk.
Unfortunately, the status quo just isn't good enough, for example because
it means Wikitravel can't use material from us.
I am now looking to Attribution-ShareAlike license, much like Wikitravel. A
side-effect of this is that we will not be able to include Wikipedia
content, and so will need to replace/rewrite any that exists.
If there are no objections by the end of the day, I am going to begin the
one month "grace period" (allowing material to be withdrawn due to objection
to the licence) by tomorrow. One month after that (let's say on New Year's
Day, for neatness) I will apply the license to cover all material on the Open
Guide to London.
Implementation note: there are some places on the Guide where excerpted
content occurs. Please, if you know of/discover any of these, ensure they
comply with British law's fair dealing statute and mark them clearly.
 See Wikitravel GFDL article linked from earlier post.
 For the London Guide; modify as necessary if you decide to apply the
same policy for a Guide in your country.
 Although I have a sinking sensation that this may be obsolete given the
recent application of the European Copyright Directive:
hex on irc.perl.org