Version 2.5 of the license is now available. We should probably "upgrade". --Archaic 15:04, 5 October 2005 (CDT)
Oh, damn. I should have realized this sooner. Earlier this week I started a wiki of my own, and used a lot of Bulbapedia layout and guidelines because they're what I'm familiar with and they work well. Unfortunately... I now see that my wiki is GNU... Damn, damn, damn. I've given credit, but... errrrr (frustration)...
So, um... Are you guys going to want me to get ride of the Bulbapedia-inspired stuff, or am I granted permission to use it (by the way, the wiki is for the works of Japanese author Hajime Kanzaka)?
All this copyright stuff on wikis is stupid. 1) Why don't they all use the same license? and 2) It's not like anyone is going to sue anyone else over this. --Argy 15:15, 6 October 2005 (CDT)
- Link to your wiki, if you don't mind? Just out of curiosity. evkl 15:24, 6 October 2005 (CDT)
Copyright is important. Even as a fairly staunch Free/Open Source Software supporter, I recognise the need for copyright and the need to clearly define what one can and cannot do with one's work. You, as a journalism student, should be even more concerned about this than I am.
Now. Why don't we all use the same licence? Well, as far as things go, some people percieve that the GFDL has flaws. Debian, one of the most rigid Linux distributions there is when it comes to Free, has classed GFDL as 'non-free'.
But there was a more practical reason behind us choosing CC by-nc-sa - by requiring non-commercial use, we make ourselves have one less reason to be sued. [Or not, perhaps. The mind of corporations continues to boggle.]
Anyway. Bulbapedia is not mine to re-license to you. But my work is. As is your work - judging by the recent changes history, it's all your work on KanzakaDex, so you could re-license your work under CC by-nc-sa. (Note that it has to be by-nc-sa.)
But yes, on a practical note, I do not think that we will sue each other over this. But that's no licence (no pun intended) to go about infringing copyrights willy-nilly. - 振霖T 05:00, 7 October 2005 (CDT)
- I see. Yes, I agree. My original intent was to use Bulbapedia stuff until I could work on it enough to make it my own, since, copyrights aside, it's cheap to use someone else's stuff. And, I would never, ever copy someone else's article content (as in the stuff that actually matters, the bulk of a wiki), and even with licenses, I do not like the idea of someone copying my essays and such. I've had to deal with plagiarism on one of my websites. So, I will continue to work on it. It may take a week or two, but it will be different. Argy 14:57, 7 October 2005 (CDT)
Trespasser is right...
Update on Wikipedia license
This page only mentions the GFDL for content from Wikipedia, but Wikipedia also uses version 3.0 of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (which still permits commercial use like the previously used GFDL). --Evice 02:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just noticed this when I was being annoyed by the pointless licensing sub-template. I think that any new articles which are Wikipedia-based (of which there should be none) would not need to be GFDL-only. However, they might want to include CC-BY-SA 3.0 as the alternate licensing. --SnorlaxMonster 07:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Version 3.0 is available.We should upgrade. Es,Fr,It,Ja is using version 3.0.
- PS:PokeWiki using cc-by-sa-3.0. Not by-nc-sa.What do you think about this?--2P 01:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'll let the powers that be know the license has been updated. We likely won't stop using the non-commercial aspect of the license, though. Bulbapedia contributors do not make any money from the efforts they put into this site, so why should an unrelated party taking freely available information? —darklordtrom 11:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
"attribute it to Bulbapedia"
The article says that copying and modifying content is allowed "provided you attribute it to Bulbapedia". Shouldn't attribution also be given to everyone who has contributed to the content? JosJuice 15:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)