File talk:Schwachabsorbierender Kreisrand.gif
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Non-commercial licensing - only
[edit]
Due to the fact that Wikiversity design of source was emulated and advertisment was injected e.g. by
- https://course.vn/learning/de/Kurs:Topologische_Invertierbarkeitskriterien
- https://www.duhoctrungquoc.vn/edu/de/Kurs:Topologische_Invertierbarkeitskriterien
as faked as Wikiversity page, I would prefer to submit content to Wiki community for non-commercial use only. So CC-SA-BY-NC-4.0 or CC-SA-BY-NC-3.0 would be an option but there is no template, allows attribution for non-commerical use only. Are contributor/authors always forced to publish for commercial use too? Bert Niehaus (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bert Niehaus Hello, it is your own work? Non-commercial files are not allowed here, as we are a free knowledge project. Ruthven (msg) 13:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ruthven I though it might be a difference legally if (1) everyone uses Wikiversity content as a learning resource even in a company (that is freedom) or (2) if someone republishes the Wikiversity content with advertising or (3) (someone adds a non-free edit and then the complete modified course as a whole is also non-free. Anyway Licensing is a complicated topic especially for preserving the freedom to access the collaborative work and keep the access to derivated work free as well.--Bert Niehaus (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- The idea is that derivated works that include our material must be free to redistribute. Be it commercially or not. We do not care, in principle: we produce knowledge and then we hope it spreads in whatever way possible. This is the main reason Wikimedia projects are published under CC BY SA license. --Ruthven (msg) 08:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ruthven Thank you, that makes sense to me. The licencing concept assures that the learning resources remain open for the community. Thank you for your reply. --Bert Niehaus (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Bert Niehaus Anytime! Just notice that CC-BY-SA implies that the reused work must be published under the same license. A commercial work including Wikimedia material would then be freely republishable by anyone. Not a very good business model... ;) Cheers Ruthven (msg) 20:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ruthven Thank you, that makes sense to me. The licencing concept assures that the learning resources remain open for the community. Thank you for your reply. --Bert Niehaus (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- The idea is that derivated works that include our material must be free to redistribute. Be it commercially or not. We do not care, in principle: we produce knowledge and then we hope it spreads in whatever way possible. This is the main reason Wikimedia projects are published under CC BY SA license. --Ruthven (msg) 08:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ruthven I though it might be a difference legally if (1) everyone uses Wikiversity content as a learning resource even in a company (that is freedom) or (2) if someone republishes the Wikiversity content with advertising or (3) (someone adds a non-free edit and then the complete modified course as a whole is also non-free. Anyway Licensing is a complicated topic especially for preserving the freedom to access the collaborative work and keep the access to derivated work free as well.--Bert Niehaus (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
