What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
16 Comments
- thomhastings, on 04/13/2009, -1/+17Here's a series of posts on how important this is:
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/13967
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5628
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/11/enormously_impo ...
Not to mention this not entirely accurate Digg from over a year ago:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Wikipedia_will_be_licens ...
Please, please, please vote. - DefaultGen, on 04/15/2009, -0/+13Out of curiosity, what would be the reason to be against a move like this?
- Balath, on 04/15/2009, -0/+10Everyone needs to read Lawrence Lessig's book "Free Culture."
After you get through a nearly three hundred page book on copyright without noticing how the pages have been turning you never think of copyright as a boring concept ever again. - SirBryce, on 04/15/2009, -0/+8Can someone explain to an idiot (in simple terms) what this actually means? I'm not familiar with how this Creative Commons stuff works and I don't see what the big deal is from what I've tried to find on the subject.
- ramilehti, on 04/15/2009, -0/+8Some are against the dual licensing terms proposed not CC-BY-SA in itself.
- omaryak, on 04/15/2009, -0/+4Basically this is a decision over how Wikipedia content will be able to be shared and licensed in the future. Creative Commons has better branding and a common search interface, so it's a bit more user-friendly than GFDL. From where I sit, that's a step in the right direction.
CC-BY-SA refers to Creative Commons (CC) licensing that, in order for the content to be used elsewhere, requires attribution (BY), and must be shared under the same license terms (Share Alike, or SA). - mlinksva, on 04/13/2009, -0/+3I hadn't seen http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5628 before, it's a great concise summary.
- darkism, on 04/15/2009, -0/+3Psh, it should be Kopimi.
- taketaketake, on 04/15/2009, -0/+3Nobody is going to click your links, ***** off
- tourettes1992, on 04/15/2009, -1/+4What does this mean?
- omaryak, on 04/15/2009, -0/+2I wonder how realistic it is for individual authors to be credited in any Wikipedia article, which would be a collaborative work. I can understand, though, that people who contributed under one license may not be happy about that work becoming dual-licensed, thus able to be shared under other terms.
- Archaic1, on 04/15/2009, -0/+2I'd love to see a list of unbiased pros and cons too. In the meantime though I found this:
http://www.h-online.com/open/Wikipedia-Community-v ...
Copied/Pasted from the above link:
"Although the change of licence is almost entirely supported within the Community, not all Wikipedia users are happy about the proposals of the Wikimedia Foundation. Critics are expressing doubts about the legality of some clauses. One problem is the correct classification of the licensed content of third parties. Many authors of free content set store by having their names mentioned on each occasion of publication, but within Wikipedia photographers are credited only by means of a link to an image description page. Critics fear that, when third parties disseminate Wikipedia articles, the author's credit will be visible only via circuitous routes. Nor, they say, is there any guarantee that Wikimedia will always be online. In the discussion, Möller is arguing for improving the crediting of holders of rights within the Wikipedia article." - skullkid700, on 04/15/2009, -0/+2So there is not a big reason to NOT vote? I'm a bit confused.
- hiPpymIck, on 04/15/2009, -0/+1im getting the impression that
if you are legally qualified ( - im not)
and you believe in the freedom of the internets
now might be a good time for some "pro bono" work
copyright - licencing - download caps - right to privacy
etc etc
theres a TWiT podcast "this week in law"
http://twit.tv/twil - Atario, on 04/15/2009, -6/+3Same as the reason Wikipedia Deletionists do what they do, I guess -- just to be a dick?
- inactive, on 04/15/2009, -5/+1………………….._,,-~’’’¯¯¯’’~-,,
………………..,-‘’ ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;’’-,
……………….,’ ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;’
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is