14 Jun
2004
14 Jun
'04
1:55 p.m.
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
future). Therefore it is my preference to assign the
copyright of all
content contributed to the guide to a single entity. The problem with
that of course is what entity...
I don't think this is a good idea. It prevents (for example) contributing
the same content to two different guides with an identical scheme. It also
prevents reuse of material from other guides.
London and Nottingham both use this:
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/>
Any objections to using it (or the updated version -
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/>)?
I'm worried by the "Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon
this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license
identical to this one." bit. Even the GPL allows distribution under
compatible licences. This licence means you can't merge content from
OxfordGuide with content from London and Nottingham guides, since
presumably 1.0 is not identical to 2.0. In general being compatible with
the broadest possible spectrum of licences (consistent with the
restrictions you actually do want) would seem to be a good thing.
I think you need to deal with attribution appropriately. My suggestion for
doing this would be to include an Attribution section in each page that
people can add themselves to if they wish when making a change.
Ganesh