Licensing

From Freephile Wiki
Revision as of 11:06, 15 January 2016 by Freephile (talk | contribs) (Created page with "This article is about three aspects of Licensing: # Licensing in general # Licensing as it applies to software # Licensing (attribution, etc.) of content/works as it is impl...")

(diff) ← Older revision | Approved revision (diff) | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This article is about three aspects of Licensing:

  1. Licensing in general
  2. Licensing as it applies to software
  3. Licensing (attribution, etc.) of content/works as it is implemented in MediaWiki system.

Licensing in General[edit | edit source]

Problematic. Expensive. Inhibits creativity and entrepreneurship.

Licensing in Software[edit | edit source]

Although there are several advantages to using Free Software, one of the biggest and most obvious advantages is the fact that the licensing is 'free'. This means that you as an organization can spend a LOT less money and time ensuring licensing compliance. There are still compliance issues, but it shouldn't be too difficult.

Licensing of Wiki content[edit | edit source]

The Wikipedia project underwent a licensing update in 2008/2009 from GFDL to dual-licensing scheme including the non-compatible CC-BY-SA. In 2016, I'm noticing that there are some quirks in the software that I'm still investigating, so I've got notes here. Basically, I want to simply figure out whether there are any issues to implementors / site Administrators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Licensing_update