Talk:Wikinews/WIKINEWS LICENSE PROPOSAL : WNL 0.2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

I'm surprised no one has made comments here... The license is designed to be simple, to provide a minimum of restrictions, to be easy to translate to other languages and legals systems.

A single comment has been raised against it, regarding the requirement to keep the copyright notice intact. This requirement is also in:

  • BSD "Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice..."
  • CC-by-sa "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work..."
  • CC-by "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work..."
  • GFDL "the copyright notices ... are reproduced in all copies..."
  • WNL 0.1 "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work..."

So I hope this dispenses with that comment. - Amgine 21:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find the usage of the term Author undesirable, keeping it as contributor works better. This is because if you use Author, you must therefore define what an Author is. Contributor is broader and covers anyone, even those that add only a single word, but an Author may only be a person that makes a significant contribution. Therefore Contributor would cover people from being used in advertising better, as it could be argued if Steven King fixed a typo somewhere, that he was not an Author and threfore usable in adds. It would also consolidate the licence, since it uses both terms. 65.95.228.253 19:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikinews/WIKINEWS_LICENSE_PROPOSAL_:_WNL_0.2&oldid=213624"