User talk:Gmartinengo

Are we using Council or Quorum of the Twelve Apostles? Or both?

Licensing Mormonwiki

I think it is good. What should we do to use it? Also what do you know about creative commons license ?

Giuseppe

Quickanswer: A creative commons license might be able to be used. My understanding is that it must be either Cc-by-sa, Cc-by, or Cc-sa. Though I think one would want the both the attribution and share alike properties. The other creative commons licenses will not work because they do not allow commercial use. There is some who would like to see the backers of GFDL and CC get together to have a common license or at least make sure they are as compatible as possible.

More complete answer:

The GFDL[1] provides (in part): "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." Thus to comply with GFDL you have to have a notice in the copyright that the work includes or is derived from, in part, wikipedia, is licensed under the GFDL - and you cn add no other conditions. The creative commons Cc-by-sa[2] license says "... Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below: to reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collective Works; to create and reproduce Derivative Works;... ...You may distribute...the Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of...this Licensew with every copy ... You distribute... You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder... ...You may distribute...a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License... ...If you distribute...the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author ... or designate[d] party or parties..." As you can see they are very similar in that both require the "distributor/copier" to include a notice it is subject to the license, attribute the source and subject the completed work to a similar license. Generally Creative Commons licenses were intended for pictures, music, etc. (creative works) and the ... after distribute includes all these other types of rights protected under copyright law. GFDL has a history in software and documentation. I'll do some checking to make sure that a "Cc-by-sa" license would be acceptable, if that is a prefered license.

Trödel|talk 15:49, 12 July 2006 (MDT)

Looks like I was wrong:

"You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it."

The GFDL requires that it be distributed under the GFDL - so it looks like a Cc-by-sa work can be incorporated into a GFDL work but not the other way. Personally - after reading both licensese - the protect about equally - so I don't think it matters. Trödel|talk 15:54, 12 July 2006 (MDT)

Ok. So let us say that we go with GFDL. In practice what should we do? Just mention it in our site somewhere or we need to do more than this? Also, if we use this license it means that people can use our articles under this license an/or it allow us to use wikipedia articles?

G