View source

== vburn.org under incompatible license compared to SL Wiki ==

As indicated by a link in the footer of vburn.org, the content of the website is available under [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ [[Image:Cc.svg|16px]] BY-NC-ND 3.0 US].
That is to say,
* BY- Attribution, author(s) (e.g. Wiki Contributors) must be attributed
* NC- Non-commercial, the work may not be used for commercial purposes
* ND- No Derivative Works, "You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work."
* US- the legalese is ported to United States legalese.

Whereas the Wiki content is available under {{license/SL Wiki}}
That is to say,

* BY- Attribution, author(s) (e.g. Wiki Contributors) must be attributed
* SA- Share-alike, derivative works must be available under the same license.


With regards to the Wiki license, a perfect example is the blog post on [http://burninglife.com/2008/08/17/burning-life-2008-staff.aspx BurningLife.com]. Although the entire blog is not available under a CC license, since the content of the post is taken from the SL Wiki, the terms of the license have been followed. Similar BY-SA adherence has occurred when people have republished [[:Image:Agni.jpg]].

The US-specific legalese likely isn't a problem for all intents and purposes (the SL Wiki isn't US-specific), but the lack of "Share-Alike", the inclusion of "Non-Commercial" and "No Derivative Works" may end up being restrictive with how Residents and the general public may re-use and republish the information/content.

[[User:SignpostMarv Martin|SignpostMarv Martin]] 02:46, 18 August 2008 (PDT)

:@BY: It's what I meant lately. The [[Project:Contribution Agreement|Contribution Agreement]] states that contributors to the Wiki are '''not''' releasing their content under the CC. They are contributing it to LL, share ownership with LL and LL are re-contributing it under ''CC BY-SA 3.0''. That means that LL is owning the contribution as if they were the ones who wrote it. BY is therefor only related to LL. Someone who uses the content does not need to write your name in the attribution part but only Linden Labs since they were (re-)contributing it. Since they are owning the contribution, they seem to be also allowed to re-distribute the content under a different license. That is for SL Wiki -> vburn.org info. For vburn.org -> SL Wiki: I don't think there will be any non-LL contributions to that page, which means, they own all the content from there anyway and can redistribute at will. So in case there are infos shifted from one page to another, it's basically double-licensing. Not copyright violation. As far as I understand it...
:Was that the problem you were referring to? Or is it quotability of the vburn.org website at Resident obtained blogs/websites?
:[[Image:Zai_signature.png|45px]] '''[[User:Zai Lynch|Lynch]]''' <sup><small>([[User talk:Zai Lynch|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Zai Lynch|contribs]])</small></sup> 04:22, 18 August 2008 (PDT)

:: I believe the Contribution Agreement basically allows Linden Lab to not follow the terms of the CC.
:: However, the vburn.org site is not registered to Linden Lab, thus the Contribution Agreement clauses do not apply.
:: The problem I am referring to is that yes, the two licenses cause conflicts should any content be moved from the SL Wiki to vburn.org or vice-versa. Also, the "No-Derivatives" clause would likely cause conflicts in the re-use of the vburn.org content.
:: With regards to "quotability", I'm not sure if taking excerpts/full passages falls under fair use or not.
:: [[User:SignpostMarv Martin|SignpostMarv Martin]] 08:00, 18 August 2008 (PDT)