The TV IV:Proposals/License

This issue has been resolved: The TV IV will continue to use the current license. Changing licenses at this point would be very difficult, and the site administrators are not interested in verbatim content from other sites.
If you believe it should be reopened, post a comment on the talk page

We chose to use the Creative Commons 2.5 license for the wiki. Is this the right choice?

Comments

1. This should be changed as soon as possible to be compatible with Wikipedia, which has a great pool of information on TV shows already. Ed g2s 09:48, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)
2. Maybe dual licensing under CC-by and GFDL would be the best choice? Also, this choice should be made ASAP, because all contributed content is currently being licensed under the CC-by licence. - Sik0fewl 14:08, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)
   1. Hmm, sorry to reply to my own comment, but I just realised a little (okay, big) problem this would cause. While Wikipedia would be able to use TVIV content if it was dual-licensed (it would just copy it using the GFDL), TVIV would not be able to take content from Wikipedia, since TVIV doesn't have permission to use the Wikipedia content under CC-by. I'm now thinking the best choice would be straight-up GFDL, since there is a lot of good content that can be borrowed from Wikipedia. - Sik0fewl 14:17, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)
   2. Triple-licensing it (CC-by, MIT/X, and GFDL) would ensure that the content is Free. Neither CC-BY nor GFDL are Free licenses, each of them has its problems. MIT/X license, besides being in the same spirit of CC-BY, is a true Free Software license. --Massa 15:15, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)
      1. I know CC-by 2.0 was considered non-free. Is that still true for 2.5? The problem with dual/triple/etc licensing is that it makes it much more difficult to take existing content from other resources (eg, Wikipedia). - Sik0fewl 19:10, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)
      2. I have checked CC-by 2.5 recently. None of the problems detected on CC-by 2.0 were really solved in 2.5, which is a pity. There is talk about a "fixed", Free, CC-by 3.0 by the end of the year. In the interest of really solving the thing, I propose:
         1. If our main interest is to borrow content from Wikipedia about shows freely, then the GFDL, single-licensing, is the only choice;
         2. If our main interest is to keep "our" content Free (as in Free Software and Free Speech), the best license is MIT/X -- it's compatible with a lot of other Free Software licenses, and should be no problem;
         3. If our main interest is to copyleft our content -- so that it can't be used without releasing to people the full text and modifications made (source code) then the best would be to triply-license under the GFDL, the CC-SA and the GPL, IMHO--Massa 07:43, 14 Sep 2005 (EDT)
3. If we switch to GFDL, will that allow us to borrow content from Wikipedia freely? --CygnusTM 14:19, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)
   1. Yes, that's correct. We can swap content back and forth as much as we like. - Sik0fewl 14:32, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)
   2. In a way -- yes, we could borrow content from Wikipedia but, if we swap completely (go GFDL-only). If we double-license the content, content slurped from Wikipedia must be clearly marked as so, because it would not be doubly-licensed. Besides, the GFDL is a not-very-nice, non-free license. --Massa 15:15, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)
4. I think the option that gives us the most compatibility with Wikipedia is the best option we should pursue. Wikipedia has a great collection of television articles and I guarantee we will have a lot to offer Wikipedia as well. Is there any way of converting the existing content over to GFPL? --Matt 17:03, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)
   1. The only way this can be done is for all contributors to say that they're contributions can be used under the GFDL (this could take some work). I would recommend posting a notice on top of each page (like Wikipedia does for funding drives, etc) for each user to put "All of my contributions can be used under the GFDL", or somesuch on their user pages. After that, you will have to edit out any content that was contributed by those who don't consent. - Sik0fewl 19:10, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)
5. My only comment with regards to this is that I still don't know what to feel about openly being able to distribute information back and forth between Wikipedia and the like. I always imagined this site to be rather all-inclusive when it comes to television, and that means that all the information from the site should be original. I mean, if we were to go around taking content from TV.com and Wikipedia, then why not bring all the information there in the first place? I don't really mind whatever decision ultimately pulls through, but just a little devil's advocate comment to further facilitate discussion. --Wizardryo 19:15, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)
   1. The main reason I can see for not simply putting all of this information in Wikipedia is that Wikipedia might not want all of it. I strongly suspect that if one were to go to Wikipedia and add, say, detailed plot summaries for each episode of The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer, the reaction would be perhaps less enthusiastic than one might like. --Ray Radlein 02:01, 14 Sep 2005 (EDT)
6. My thoughts on this: it will be impossible to get permission from all contributors to license under the GFDL, mainly because probably not everyone will respond. We can just change the license and hope none of the users will sue us (not gonna happen obviously) or we can just copy information from wikipedia anyway and hope they won't sue us (not gonna happen obviously). Mainly I feel a decision needs to be made and we need to run with it. Personally, I feel the admins should just proclaim they're changing to the GFDL. If any user objects, just go through their history pages and remove any contribution's they've made. That will make us compatible with wikipedia. Dual licensing does not, since we do not have a license to distribute wikipedia under a CC license. Jacoplane 14:32, 17 Sep 2005 (EDT)