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