Text From Project Page
Currently all information on the Wiki is licensed under the Gnu Free Documentation Licence (unless explicitly stated on a page), which was the first Free document licence available. Recently some simpler licences have been created under the Creative commons banner which are simpler to understand and more suited to a Wiki
Recently the Wikipedia has reached an agreement with the GFDL people to optionally move to the Creative Common's licence. There needs to be a community vote to make it official but it is widely regarded as a good move due to the simplicity and clarity of the CC licence. The GDFL was the only one available when the Wikipedia was started but it is not ideal for a number of reasons. the chief reason is that it was written specifically for manuals for Free software projects and it very specific in that regard.
Gnu Free Document Licence
From the Preamble:
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others. This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software. We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.
The most suitable licence for the Wiki is the Creative Commons, By Attibution, Share Alike (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) which gives the freedom to:
You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work to Remix — to adapt the work Under the following conditions: Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page. Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.
What do we want?
I would like to propose that what we want to do for this Wiki is implicit in the aim of the GFDL (which is why I chose it first) and express it in the simple and clear terms of the CC licence:
The purpose of this KnowledgeBase to make a lasting resource that will be "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure all YWAMers and everyone else the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the YWAM and all individuals involved in the creating of the KnowledgeBase a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others. To this aim we publish the material under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (by-sa) licence.
- --Kev-The-Hasty 10:14, 20 March 2008 (CET)
I like it Kev, what more do we need to do? steve-the-not-so-hasty 20:19, 21 March 2008 (CET)
- To make the change we need peoples agreement. I would suggest a "this is the proposal - email if you disagree" approach instead of "we need your explicit agreement to change" as I think there are only 3 of us who have an opinion. Almost no-one has questioned the old license anyway. I think this makes it clear and it will help us explain the "why" of the KB --Kev-The-Hasty 11:02, 22 March 2008 (CET)
We should go through the wiki and add a banner to each article which isn't licenced Creative Commons. It is the case in some external articles which we're glad to have ... but unfortunately couldn't convince the author to licence it more freely! (E.g. Why Plant Churches, Principles Made Practical, Pink Folder/Aligning Course with YWAM's Foundational Values etc.) Additionally, those articles should be protected from edits (maybe they are already).--Pitpat 21:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)