Wikimedia Gets Creative: Adopts Creative Commons Licensing For Wikipedia
by Kristin Shoemaker - May. 22, 2009Comments (1)- Related Blog Posts
- Open-Xchange and SugarCRM Join Forces to Integrate and Share Data
- Windows (L)users Are People, Too
- Military Medicine Foundation Opts for Open Solution With Bluenog
- The Great Software Freedom Debate, Part 368
- Sun Exec Proposes Software Freedom Definition and Vendor Scorecard
By way of iTWire comes word that Wikimedia is adopting Creative Commons licensing for Wikipedia as well as its other services. From this point forward, Wikipedia content will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) terms, as well the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL, or Copyleft) which has historically been used for Wikipedia content. This means that those wishing to re-use content on Wikipedia can actually choose the license terms that best suit them.
A Creative Commons licensing model certainly feels a little more fitting and logical than the former GFDL terms, but at Wikipedia's inception GFDL was the most appropriate, comprehensive license that meshed with the open encyclopedia's vision.
Though CC-BY-SA is perhaps a better fit for Wikipedia's content, there's likely going to be a bit of confusion when it comes to re-using and re-mixing content under the current dual license model. The GFDL license terms are very much like those found in related GNU free software licenses -- and re-mixing or introducing CC-BY-SSA licensed content into a GFDL object is a violation of terms. The bright side of this potentially confusing area is that good faith efforts to avoid and fix any licensing slip ups are more likely to be viewed by all parties as learning experiences than law breaking.
The new license model does create an interesting situation. Naturally, as technology, and content creation and delivery change over time, so will license terms. How does a large, multi-national repository of user generated content make that transition, get the word out, and ensure that current, past, and future contributors have the protection -- and freedom -- to use and build on what is being created?
Share Your Comments
