This page is a ThreadMode discussion of the PredictionMarket page.
The PredictionMarket page needs a RelevanceToProblemSolving? section.
– KeithHopper 2006-12-14 03:39 UTC
Ah, yes. You’re right. Will be sure to add that to all of these pages I fill in
– SamRose 2006-12-14 03:53 UTC
Putting GNU public license content on a CC attribution license page may be worthy of discussion (I believe it is a direct violation of license terms… yee ha!).
– KeithHopper 2006-12-14 03:58 UTC
Hmmm…I see what you mean about combining GNU Freedoc and CC License content. But, I wonder about quoting and giving attribution to the source. On the PredictionMarket page, what I am trying to do is quote and give attribution to the source. So, this is only meant to be a quote. And, I believe that quoting the Wikipedia article is Fair Use under Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. ยง 107. And, I only posted a link to the license the content is distributed under for reference.
However, I am thinking that maybe I should scrap the quoted material from Wikipedia, and make orignal contributions in their place. That way we won’t have to worry about stuff like this.
– SamRose 2006-12-15 14:27 UTC
Combinatory licensing issues within open content networks is a new phenomenon. I’m glad we’re encountering it. I would suggest not avoiding it so that it continues to encourage experimentation and discussion!
– KeithHopper 2006-12-15 15:11 UTC
Ok, good point. I guess I’ll leave pretty much as is for now. I am certain that, when it comes to publication in any medium, that combining text with different licenses is legal, so long as the imported content with different license is represented as a quote. Wholesale importation of entire Wikipedia pages right into this wiki, then badged with CC license, however, probably is against the GNU Freedoc license. – SamRose
– SamRose 2006-12-16 17:17 UTC