MediaWiki talk:Copyright

Nuance

copied in part from Talk:Image policy#Copyrighted images for special cases

Looks good, and I agree that it's a good idea to have this option. But should we perhaps change the disclaimer at the bottom of all pages, which reads "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0," to something more nuanced? Clearly, not all of our content is Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0. --Peter ^Talk 12:06, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah, definitely, what about just removing the 1.0? Where should we move this convo too before we fly off on a tangent? – cacahuate ^talk 00:56, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, lets continue this tangent at MediaWiki talk:Copyright#Nuance. --Peter ^Talk 01:09, 21 February 2008 (EST)

To change the part "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0.", we would need to have help from someone with root access, which frankly doesn't seem too likely. Perhaps just change it to "Most content is available under $1"? Or to "Content is available under $1, with certain limitations"? Then we could link to Copyleft, which, by the way, does need some revision to clarify obligations to downstream users. --Peter ^Talk 01:09, 21 February 2008 (EST)

You seem to have your head wrapped around where our license needs to be, maybe you should revise the copyleft in your sandbox so we can see it and discuss as needed – cacahuate ^talk 01:22, 21 February 2008 (EST)

To revive this old discussion, I'm inclined to change this message to:

Content is available under $1, with [[Copyleft|limitations]].

Objections? --Peter ^Talk 19:58, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Well... since it's actually only images that are subject to various licenses, how about this:

Text is available under ccbysa 1.0; images are available under various licenses

I think this is accurate, right? And it's something that we can change without root access, which is nice – cacahuate ^talk 21:19, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Correct, that looks good to me. I don't know whether its length might cause format problems, though—maybe take out the "are available" part if that's a problem? --Peter ^Talk 21:38, 21 June 2008 (EDT)