I suppose this means that we cannot copy GFDL content (e.g. from Wiktionary) to this site. Perhaps this should be clarified.--Patrick 10:02, 21 September 2006 (CEST)
- technically that's true, and the other way: WZ->wikt is possible.
- though, a list of translations or synonyms is not copyrightable (on Wiktionary for example), only definitions are, to some extent (when they show some originality?), I think. Kipcool 10:27, 21 September 2006 (CEST)
- Facts are not copyrightable, but definitions probably are, when considered en masse. So, ironically, the free license of Wiktionary prevents use of their content by other free projects that use different licenses, forever (unless you can track down each author of the content you want to reproduce and ask them to relicense it).
- On this subject, have you considered any possibilities for changing licenses in the future?
- Wikipedia is "locked into" the GFDL 1.2 because changing the license would require asking permission of everyone who has contributed in the past. This makes it incompatible with other free projects.
- Wiktionary is apparently "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation", which might be more useful if future versions of the license are changed to be more compatible.
- Citizendium gets around this by allowing the Citizendium Foundation to relicense the work in the future (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:We_aren%27t_Wikipedia #10). I don't know how they plan to decide what's acceptable, though.
- Also, you have a little GFDL icon in the bottom left of every page, but not a CC icon. Omegatron 20:50, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
Also, when I first heard of this project, the first thing I thought of was the beginnings of a universal translator. ;-) Is this something that others have thought of? Is it licensed in such a way as to be useful for this?
(Then again, "facts can't be copyrighted" goes both ways, and, like w:Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service, it might be possible to take the factual data out of the project and use it in another software/device without regard to copyright anyway. Merely working to collect information does not give you a copyright on that collection. No Sweat of the Brow Copyright) Omegatron 21:11, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
The wiki is dual licensed, but the logo in the bottom left corner shows only the GFDL. It's easy to mistakenly assume this is the only license the wiki is under. Considering most other wikis are under Creative Commons Licenses, I feel it would be more useful to switch the icon for a Creative Commons one even though the content continues to be available under both that and the GFDL. I saw it today and thought you hadn't switched when migration between the two licenses became possible. On pages like Special:AllPages, there is no mention of any Creative Commons License. Angela 05:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have changed it. Thanks.
- We have the two licenses since the beginning of the project, but only one icon... --Kipcool 20:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Why not SA?
I don't really have a problem with it, but why did you choose CC-BY and not CC-BY-SA for OmegaWiki? Where was it discussed? I tried searching the Beer Parlour archives, but couldn't find it. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- the issue with copyright and lexical data is that you cannot copyright it. All you realistically have is copyright on the database. As far as I am concerned the whole notion of copyright is not helpful. As to discussion, there is not much of it.. much of it was on IRC and skype as well. Thanks, GerardM 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)