On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Sam Johnston <s...@samj.net> wrote: > CC are most likely to go along with what is sensible and are very > likely to listen to WMF when defining 'sensible'.
I have little doubt that's the case. > The license as it is > is pretty damn close to good enough (hence the dropping of the wiki > license?) and I certainly don't see any show-stoppers. A "CC wiki license" has been mentioned a couple times now. Just to clear up what that was (to the extent it existed): - A "beta" and a draft not intended to be used during the CC v2.5 drafting process, including the main change in that version, allowing one to designate that attribution go to the author and/or a third party (to support some wiki and similar use cases, thus the name), see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5344 and more importantly http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5447 (admittedly some of the language in those posts is not as clear as it could've been, so long overdue apologies for that). - An license icon that said "wiki" on it, but its use was just to point at CC BY-SA 2.5, which included the above change. A quick search turns up some in the wild, eg in the footer of http://stackoverflow.com So if you've heard of a "CC wiki license" it is just CC BY-SA, and note that CC has realized that attribution for wikis is an interesting and important case for a long time. Obviously it is also a hard thing to get right, still developing, as evinced by the discussion right now. Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
