We are hereby calling for formal (or semi-formal), well-reasoned position statements, from anyone--including people outside the Citizendium community--about what licensing scheme the Citizendium should use.
The issues are covered in an incomplete and semi-systematic way on three separate pages on Summaries of policy arguments.
There are many interesting issues involved here, but it boils down to just one basic practical issue: under what license should we release articles that we have created ourselves? (Articles that originated in part from Wikipedia are now available under the GFDL.)
If you like, you can make your essay a subpage of this page. Please don't make your essay a subpage of your Citizendium user page (that's actually contrary to user page rules).
Non-Citizens can host the essay yourself, or send it to us and we will host it, in HTML, PDF, or MediaWiki form. Send links to me (or another Citizen) to post.
Deadline: We will have made the final decision on the license by November 15. So the essays should be received by, say, October 20, if you want the decisionmakers to be able to absorb them.
- Citizendium's License (Mike Johnson).
- The thing about licenses. (Peter Tretter).
- A few Quick observations (Joe Quick).
- Dual Licensing (Robert King).
- Permit commercial use (Andrew Su).
- Essay by Jitse Niesen.
- In favor of CC-BY-SA-NC (Anthony Argyriou).
- NC or not NC (Aleksander Stos)
- In favor of permitting commercial use (Utkarshraj Atmaram)
- Apparently the only pro-GFDL one (Zach Pruckowski)
- Also in favor of only GFDL (Tom Kelly)
- Freedom of Content v. Quality of Content (Stephen Ewen)
|Workgroups | Discussion forum | For non-members | | Other|