Archive:Should we use GFDL or CC-by-sa for CZ-originated articles?

Policy argument summary started March 26, 2007

The issue explained neutrally

At issue is the question whether the GFDL licence should be used for articles originating on Citizendium.

Affirmative: use only GFDL

To maintain compabitility with Wikipedia it is by far easiest to use GFDL throughout because it is the licence Wikipedia uses for all its text.

1. Having 1 license is simplier and "simply is better". If you know how to take a multiple choice test, the answer is often the one wordest in the simpliest form. In an argument, the person with the most simple, concise argument often wins. Simpler is easier to work with. Using GFDL would keep our licensing issues simple.

1. People around the world are familiar with the concept of Wikipedia and have some idea of how their licensing works; we won't have to re-educate the masses.

1. You'll confuse and frustrate your users. Very few people (% of total # of people) actually read all of the policies at Wikipedia and I'm sure that if we grow big enough, few will read all of the policies here. Users hear that they can copy their articles over from Wikipedia, but if the article already exists under a different license, they cannot. Having GFDL would eliminate this problem.

1. Can't add Wikipedia phrases to an article started under a different license. Having GFDL would eliminate this problem.

1. An article that has a similar cadence or underlying structure to a wikipedia article and is under a different license is possibly illegal. Many of our articles have similar cadence and structure to Wikipedia articles. (Please modify if this argument is not fully correct). Please see: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ_Talk:How_to_convert_Wikipedia_articles_to_Citizendium_articles&curid=100007564&diff=100066402&oldid=100065995

1. Won't be able to merge or move articles easily, etc. Articles under separate licenses will not be compatible with each other. If we use GFDL for Wikipedia-originating articles and another licence for CZ-originating articles then we will be unable to move content between those two licenses. Moving paragraphs between articles is frequently a very useful natural thing to do when working with a wiki, for example when merging articles. Making it impossible to do this will frustrate and confuse editors not interested in subtle legal issues. Having GFDL would eliminate this problem.

1. Monitoring which articles originate or have any piece, word, cadence, or phrase from wikipedia will be difficult. It will be difficult to monitor when a line has come from wikipedia. We have no easy way to compare the articles and once we start having thousands and thousands of edits per day, one line or even a couple words could be added to an article of a different license and violate a license policy. Having GFDL would eliminate this problem.

1. Take a poll - People care more about the information than who is profiting off the information. If you get another license to prevent some articles from being used commercially, it will be a headache and the majority of people probably don't care as long as they get the information one way or another.

1. Having two licenses is one more reason for people at Wikipedia not to join Citizendium.

1. The pros of sharing Wikipedias information, in terms of information for Citizendium, outweigh the cons

1. CZ's ideology will outweigh the negatives of content sharing

Negative: use CC-BY-SA

Please separate this discussion into discrete arguments

The GFDL is an old clunky licence which was never really intended for something like an encyclopedia. It requires redistributors to jump through annoying hoops to use content. CC-BY-SA is more flexible and more easily understood. The GFDL has been the ultimate cause of considerable acrimony between some Wikipedia editors because of the constraint forced on usage in Wikipedia, even of publicity material which is given away freely. It should prove possible to avoid these pitfalls by developing a sensible thought-through policy for ourselves, and avoid the angst amongst Wikipedians striving to obey the latest diktat.

CC Version 3 has been drafted with a focussed global perspective. The status of material within Wikipedia is in dispute even among some article editors themselves, so we cannot import articles without giving careful independent consideration to copyright matters in any case.