The TV IV talk:Proposals/License

1. I'm confused. I know it's your site and all, but the general consensus on the Proposal page seemed to be that a CC-by license prevents us from using any copyleft material from Wikipedia or similar sites, and that it would be more preferable to use GFDL, or the MIT license (which I know little about). Why then have you decided to stick with CC?
   
   I don't believe you need to secure individual permission from all contributors. After all, the GNU website currently lists the CC-Attribution 2.0 license as a non-copyleft free license. This means that TV IV's material can be included in a GFDL website, doesn't it? --ReverendDave 13:16, 6 Oct 2005 (EDT)
   1. Because this isn't Wikipedia Jr.: The TV Edition. We don't want people just stealing entire Wikipedia pages because that makes this project worthless. If we wanted to just take information from Wikipedia, then we'd all be using Wikipedia instead of working on this website. --IndieRockLance 16:09, 6 Oct 2005 (EDT)
      1. OK, I take your point. Compatibility with other wikis seemed very important to the people in the original discussion, so when I saw that the matter had been dropped, I didn't understand. Of course, there's always the possibility that as TV IV accumulates more data, we'll get slurped by Wikipedia! --ReverendDave 01:30, 7 Oct 2005 (EDT)

1. I was just curious under the Creative Commons License would be eventually be able to distribution this wiki. For example, would we be able to create CD and DVD distribution like Wikipedia is working on? --Matt 11:43, 11 Oct 2005 (EDT)
   1. I don't see why we couldn't. --CygnusTM 14:12, 11 Oct 2005 (EDT)

CC / GFDL compatibility

This might not even be an issue in the future. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-11-21/CC_compatibility .. Jacoplane 00:53, 22 Nov 2005 (EST)

Memory Alpha

The license being used on Memory Alpha (Star Trek wiki) is the Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 license. We use the Attribution 2.5 license is used. Would it be possible to copy some their content? I know we don't want any verbatem content, but obviously they have done so much work in writing episode pages that we should consider the possibility. We have our own formatting styles, but some of the plot summaries could be used. I won't copy anything across, just thought I'd raise the possibility. This is why free licenses are a good thing, to not have to reinvent the wheel every time. Jacoplane 03:06, 23 Nov 2005 (EST)

• I believe you should be able to use stuff from there as long as you attribute it to them. --CygnusTM 09:40, 23 Nov 2005 (EST)

Commercial Use?

Why does this site use plain Attribution 2.5 instead of Attribution 2.5 Non-Commercial? Considering all of the time, effort, and finances that go into this project, I would think that letting other people profit off of this would be anathema here. There's also the HUGE possibility of someone "accidentally" forgetting to properly credit TVIV.org for the information.

I'm leery of some company taking all the information about their series verbatim from here and us not even getting a mention. I say this not just as a contributor, but as someone who does similiar writing for work and has seen others blatantly rip off online sources for commercial projects. --Lampbane 01:00, 13 Dec 2005 (EST)

Well the attribution license part means that people have to give us attribution. However, this is no different to wikipedia's license, and they seem to do fine having people like answers.com taking their content. In fact, this is now one of the sources of revenue for them. If we ever catch some commercial company breaking the terms of the licens, we can see what to do next. Jacoplane 15:31, 13 Dec 2005 (EST)

How does Wikipedia make money off of Answers.com? It's a mirror site, not explicitly a licensee (but then again, maybe I missed something when I was reading the Wikipedia article that discussed how it works). Also, we're not Wikipedia. They're much bigger and inclusive and more well-known. I asked about this because I happened to be looking at Memory Alpha, which has the non-commercial clause, which seemed a "safer" option for a small, specialized site. --Lampbane 16:48, 13 Dec 2005 (EST)

If contributors' contributions are "considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License", surely this prevents TVIV itself from making commercial use of them?

You are possibly in breach of your own licence

As somebody said above but didn't make the point forceably: this wiki has a legal obligation to respect the copyrights of its contributors as much as any potential mirror does. The wiki doesn't own the articles, the contributors do. When I clicked edit all I got was the usual disclaimer, no mention of any extra rights being assigned to this wiki. Thus, all of the material here has been licenced to you under the CC2.5 non-commercial; your rights are the same as any other end user of the material.

The question, then, is publishing the material on this website and displaying adverts a commercial use? I'm not sure. If it is, you can't do it. If it isn't, you can't stop other folks mirroring the material and displaying adverts too. Really, a truly free licence would have been a better choice imho. --Kingboyk 11:39, 18 November 2006 (EST)

Wikipedia changed their license

Old topic, I know, but since Wikipedia changed their license to a CC license earlier this year, perhaps this topic should be revisited.

I know the basic arguments against copying content verbatum from Wikipedia -- being a mirror of their content isn't an ideal situation. Ideally, I think, Wikipedia would have [i]general[/i] information about TV shows, and more [i]detailed[/i] information could be sought from specialized sites like TV IV. It's rather sad to see Wikipedia having far more detailed articles on several shows than TV IV.

What I think would work well is to take content from Wikipedia, where the articles here are lacking, and use that as a [i]starting point[/i] to build upon. Wikipedia did something similar with the eleventh edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, which is public domain, but quite outdated. --Canuck81 18:33, 4 December 2009 (EST)