Ukcider talk:Copyrights

From Ukcider

The copyright policy of ukcider should probably be based around the idea that we want to encourage people to feel happy about contributing towards creating a resource which is going to benefit everybody by increasing the public knowledge of the subject, but that it shouldn't then be taken and used for any other organisation or individual's seperate purposes and profit. So the information contained on the WIKI can be freely accessed and printed out for all private and cooperative uses. Any attempt to use the content for profitable publication however is forbidden unless expressly permitted by the ukcider community, which would then need to use the ukcider name, prominently acknowledge the source and display the link to the website on each chapter heading.

Note that the current licence stated at the bottom of every edit page would ALLOW corporate re-use of the data.

But it also says "(see ukcider:Copyrights for details)." which leads us to here!

• I prefer the current licence - although ideally with the standard Creative Commons attribution clause (i.e. requirement to credit ukcider and display a link). ShareAlike licences, in my (very personal!) opinion, "ghettoise" information and prevent useful recycling in a large number of contexts. But I realise the BSD vs. GPL argument is as almost old as the hills. -- Richard Fairhurst 19:39, 11 December 2005 (GMT)

• I have to admit I'm not familar with the arguments and would simply seek a clear copyright statement which suits our contributors, is fair and workable. --Andy 20:10, 11 December 2005 (GMT)
• I'm very clear on the licence issue, and just strolling around the site tonight you have some major issues. Rafts of text from Wikipedia have been copy/pasted or barely altered without any atribution - as required under the GFDL (wikipedia's older licence) and superceded by CC-BY-SA 3 [1]. Just a comment but the copy-vio's need to be fixed. Pedro :  Chat  20:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Was there ever any resolution on this? It would seem sane and uncontroversial (though I'm personally not a fan) to adopt the same licence as Wikipedia, CC-BY-SA. --Richard Fairhurst 13:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)