File talk:Redshirt comic.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
License[edit]
Since the comics rely so heavily on (i.e. is a derivative work of) the text of Wikipedia articles, which are under the GNU Free Documentation License, I think it should be licensed under the GFDL rather than a Creative Commons license. Superm401 00:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the license, the current Creative Commons ShareAlike license was recommended and instituted by the Wikimedia Foundation. Other licensing possibilities have been discussed, but it appears that ShareAlike may be the most appropriate choice, considering the unique blend of content and visuals. --Greg Williams 01:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Greg Williams).
- However, derivative works of GFDL content must be licensed under the GFDL. It says "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." Superm401 07:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please explain the difference in the two licenses, as it would relate to the various authors of the text I've excerpted and to my own derivative/illustrative work. Regarding the WikiWorld comic, both licenses seem to allow others to reproduce, distribute or adapt what I've done - as I understand things, anyway: Individuals are free to post the "Dr. Seuss" comic elsewhere on the Web, or to reprint it in a commercial publication, on posters, T-shirts, etc., or to create their own adaptation in the form of an animation, sculpture, spoken-word piece, interpretive dance, tattoo, billboard, national monument, sweater vest, keychain, laser light show, birthday cake, topiary, Broadway play, or by painting it on the head of a pin.
- They're similar in practice, but not compatible. That's why it says "you release the Modified Version under precisely this License". Superm401 09:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. I've messaged the Wikimedia Foundation for clarification. If both licenses serve the same basic purpose, there's no cause for debate - but perhaps there was a legitimate reason for the original choice of a Creative Commons license. (The choice wasn't mine.) --Greg Williams 13:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- They're similar in practice, but not compatible. That's why it says "you release the Modified Version under precisely this License". Superm401 09:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please explain the difference in the two licenses, as it would relate to the various authors of the text I've excerpted and to my own derivative/illustrative work. Regarding the WikiWorld comic, both licenses seem to allow others to reproduce, distribute or adapt what I've done - as I understand things, anyway: Individuals are free to post the "Dr. Seuss" comic elsewhere on the Web, or to reprint it in a commercial publication, on posters, T-shirts, etc., or to create their own adaptation in the form of an animation, sculpture, spoken-word piece, interpretive dance, tattoo, billboard, national monument, sweater vest, keychain, laser light show, birthday cake, topiary, Broadway play, or by painting it on the head of a pin.
- However, derivative works of GFDL content must be licensed under the GFDL. It says "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." Superm401 07:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, CC and GFDL are basically compatible. Only thing is, if you even want to reproduce a paragraph of GFDL text, you have to print a full three-page document along with it, or link to that document. Creative Commons works, on the other hand, only require you credit the creator of the work. Thus, the Foundation recommended CC because it's so much easier to work with. Newer projects like Wikinews actually go under the format, but there's sadly no way to ever get Wikipedia under that license. New articles could all be, but anything old has to stay GFDL.
- Anyway, you can easily claim fair use on the text, as you could with any copyrighten text. Despite the format, it can be claimed WikiWorld is for educational purposes, and thus safe under US law. So long as you stay living in America, or a handful of other countries, you're perfectly safe to do this, so far as I know. -- Zanimum 15:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Zanimum. That makes things much clearer. --Greg Williams 12:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Told ya[edit]
Greg, I told you this licensing thing wasn't as easy as "The folks in the Wikimedia office support me doing this." I'm not needling you. I'm just letting you know I'm still watching to see how this all plays out. (In my opinion, we'll once again see how the OFFICE back-pedals on policies when it's a "friend" of the mission, but stretches policy to be as punitive as possible when someone is seen as a threat.) Licenses don't really work that way in a legal sense, but I'm not a lawyer. --72.94.150.46 (JossBuckle Swami) 03:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm right there with you, watching what happens. I could change the licensing at any time, of course, although I can't really see a big difference between the licenses being discussed. My legal expertise is approximately zilch. But I've received disparate (and, I assume, carefully considered) recommendations from a few different sources. Since I have limited time to devote to this project, I'd prefer to spend it creatively, rather than getting bogged down with back-and-forth editing debates, deletion campaigns and related wrangling. With any luck, the legalities will somehow shake out in a manner that satisfies absolutely everyone - while, as a side benefit, eradicating world hunger and leading to a long and lasting peace. (Getting back to creative concerns: Can you recommend any articles that I might be able to illustrate? Thanks.) --Greg Williams 14:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
