Wikinews/Licensure Poll/CC-BY/For

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  1. Dysprosia 22:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (n,w,b) -- weakly in support, due to its similarity with the much simpler and less complex BSD license. If support for BSD or BSD-type licenses fails this would be my second choice.[reply]
  2. tsca (n:pl:user:tsca) / 08:46:18, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
  3. Deprifry 11:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. McCart42 13:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC) en I find this a good, simple option. To those who say it is too complicated (and the BSD license is better for this reason): have you seen the human-readable summary? It's not CC's fault that lawyers like legalese. They wrote three versions of it: one for humans, one for computers (so you can use plugins like mozcc to show license information as you browse), and one for lawyers. Don't just read the one for lawyers and say it's too complex - I'm sure you wouldn't want to read the one for computers either. To be fair, I don't have a problem with BSD license, but I don't think it does anything different than CC-by. (see also for the mozilla addons page for mozcc)[reply]
    Releasing one's content under an open license musn't be done frivolously, it's important to understand the implications of releasing content under a certain license. CC-by's legalese makes this more difficult. One must read the legalese to fully understand it, the "version for humans" does not exactly spell everything out either. I completely comprehend the implications etc. of the BSD license; I don't with CC-by. That's all I was trying to say re. the complexity of CC-by. Dysprosia 02:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Datrio 13:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SonicR 14:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC) de[reply]
  7. Sblive 17:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Brent Dax 17:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. stv 19:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Faager 20:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC) fr Although I don't think it does perfectly suit our requirements...[reply]
  11. Eloquence 22:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC) (I would prefer public domain, but the international legal situation would make that more of an activist than a practical stance)[reply]
  12. IlyaHaykinson 02:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC) (en) — strongly support due to minimum of restrictions on reusing content.[reply]
  13. Aphaia++ 06:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC) (ja)[reply]
  14. Spe88 (talk) Support
  15. TUFKAAP I believe CC-BY is a good lisence.
  16. Habakuk 13:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC) n:de:benutzer:habakuk[reply]
  17. Derbeth 10:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (pl)[reply]
  18. ClareWhite 11:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC) en[reply]
  19. Ascánder 13:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Munchkinguy 02:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC) My vote stays with this one unless I can see more details on the "Wikinews License".[reply]
    What you see with the WNL, is what you get - there's no need for more "detail". That's the beauty of it. Licenses don't have to be the badly written monstrosities the CC ones are. Dan100 07:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Patio 07:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC) nl[reply]
    Please indicate the language edition of Wikinews you participate with. - Amgine 20:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. da Pete 21:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC) de[reply]
  23. This is the only one, that makes sense. --DaB. 13:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. PiaCarrot 22:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC) -- Some edition(For example, Japanese) is licensed under CC-BY, so I think Wikinews should be licenced at least under CC-BY. ja.wn[reply]
  25. --Taichi - (^_^) 06:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Kaldari 15:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Marshaü 20:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)