Xenharmonic Wiki talk:License: Difference between revisions
m Mike Battaglia moved page Talk:License to Talk:Xenharmonic Wiki License: Seems like "License" is a reserved page name or something |
→concern about NC being non-free and incompatible: new section |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
For reference, although this page was just created, this has always been the license that the Xenharmonic Wiki materials have been distributed under, going back to when the site was hosted at Wikispaces. The license was also listed at our [https://archive.org/details/XenharmonicWikiBackups Archive.org Xenharmonic Wiki Backups page], so this page is just to make it easier to locate. | For reference, although this page was just created, this has always been the license that the Xenharmonic Wiki materials have been distributed under, going back to when the site was hosted at Wikispaces. The license was also listed at our [https://archive.org/details/XenharmonicWikiBackups Archive.org Xenharmonic Wiki Backups page], so this page is just to make it easier to locate. | ||
== concern about NC being non-free and incompatible == | |||
When and how was the NC license chosen? I haven't been active enough before to know about the history, but this page indicates it was added only this past July 2020 (which is after contributions I made, and I want all my work to be CC-BY-SA without the NC). I'm concerned about problems with this restriction. | |||
Because NC is non-free (see https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/freeworks), it is incompatible with the standard free-culture licenses, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA (the latter being used at Wikipedia). This means no material can ever be mixed between Wikipedia and the XenWiki (or between the XenWiki and anything else that is CC-BY or CC-BY-SA). Wikipedia material is available for free use, but under the CC-BY-SA license. | |||
To reiterate: in a situation where people want to combine material from Wikipedia and XenWiki, there is no commercial activity happening, but the NC license is still blocking this creative process. Surely that's not intended. | |||
To clarify again, as this is often misunderstood: ''if some work says "no commercial use", it cannot be legally used within another work that does allow commercial use, and this is true even when no commercial use ever occurs.'' | |||
Is there any actual concern about commercial use? Who would be using XenWiki material commercially? And wouldn't it be welcome, even encouraged, for the work to be used in such rare cases as long as the commercial use itself was still licensed freely? (That's what the SA "share-alike" is for already, that alone blocks anyone from using the material in All Rights Reserved derivatives). Wouldn't CC-BY-SA address all the real concerns anyone has? | |||
I suspect that NC was chosen just because of the general inclination that this work isn't intended for commercial use. I suspect nobody considered the actual ramifications of the license. Is that right? | |||
The NC license makes me hesitant to continue contributing here. I really hope it's somehow possible to build the consensus needed to change to the standard CC-BY-SA. | |||
--[[User:Wolftune|Wolftune]] ([[User talk:Wolftune|talk]]) 05:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:12, 22 March 2021
For reference, although this page was just created, this has always been the license that the Xenharmonic Wiki materials have been distributed under, going back to when the site was hosted at Wikispaces. The license was also listed at our Archive.org Xenharmonic Wiki Backups page, so this page is just to make it easier to locate.
concern about NC being non-free and incompatible
When and how was the NC license chosen? I haven't been active enough before to know about the history, but this page indicates it was added only this past July 2020 (which is after contributions I made, and I want all my work to be CC-BY-SA without the NC). I'm concerned about problems with this restriction.
Because NC is non-free (see https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/freeworks), it is incompatible with the standard free-culture licenses, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA (the latter being used at Wikipedia). This means no material can ever be mixed between Wikipedia and the XenWiki (or between the XenWiki and anything else that is CC-BY or CC-BY-SA). Wikipedia material is available for free use, but under the CC-BY-SA license.
To reiterate: in a situation where people want to combine material from Wikipedia and XenWiki, there is no commercial activity happening, but the NC license is still blocking this creative process. Surely that's not intended.
To clarify again, as this is often misunderstood: if some work says "no commercial use", it cannot be legally used within another work that does allow commercial use, and this is true even when no commercial use ever occurs.
Is there any actual concern about commercial use? Who would be using XenWiki material commercially? And wouldn't it be welcome, even encouraged, for the work to be used in such rare cases as long as the commercial use itself was still licensed freely? (That's what the SA "share-alike" is for already, that alone blocks anyone from using the material in All Rights Reserved derivatives). Wouldn't CC-BY-SA address all the real concerns anyone has?
I suspect that NC was chosen just because of the general inclination that this work isn't intended for commercial use. I suspect nobody considered the actual ramifications of the license. Is that right?
The NC license makes me hesitant to continue contributing here. I really hope it's somehow possible to build the consensus needed to change to the standard CC-BY-SA.