Buzzpedia:License Discussion

From Buzzpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Use this page as a survey on our six license options. Tell your class mates whether you support or oppose the license options listed below. Explain your support or opposition in a sentence or two. Try to refer back to the license brief and presentations given in support of the license in explaining your own position. You may not support the license your group presented on.

NOTE: An important question was raised during our discussion about whether or not the Georgia Tech Intellectual Property Policy precludes our release of Buzzpedia under some or all Creative Commons licenses. We may want to consider the hypothetical scenario of Tech claiming copyright in our wiki as we debate the question of which license would be best for Buzzpedia. However, it does not appear that the IP agreement precludes us releasing our wiki under Creative Commons. See here for more information.

Contents

Creative Commons Attribution License

License

Creative Commons Attribution License

Briefs

Survey

Oppose: I think this license is too permissive. We shouldn't just allow anyone who gives us attribution to use our Buzzpedia content for any reason. Someone could wrap our content in ads and make money on it. I'm opposed to anyone else making money from Buzzpedia, because I feel it exploits Buzzpedia contributors, who wouldn't receive any of the profits.Pburdell 19:14, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

Oppose: I agree with Pburdell. This license would let anyone use our work without any effort on their behalf, which is certainly not fair to the original authors.--Kdease3 20:48, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

Oppose: I would also like to agree with everyone, if they can just take our stuff, then where will all the hard work and effort that the original authors spent go? It should definitely not be considered |Silent Protagonist

Support: I would like to disagree with everyone, commercial use on buzzpedia seems highly unlikely in such a small scale situation with information on such a specific topic. The hard work and effort the authors spent on their work should be put on display and made easier to share, which this license does. norangio3

Oppose: This Creative Commons license is too lenient for our purposes. It does in fact encourage participation and editing without fear of restriction, but contributing students and the outside population are completely free to do things like solicit our work and create identical copies that are used for intentions completely unrelated to the purpose of Buzzpedia. Torus12

Oppose: I agree with Torus12. This is a very useful commons license but it is not the one that we need to use. My biggest problem with it is the commercial use it allows people to have. We put all of the work into creating the site and then someone else could simply take the information and make a profit. cw34

Oppose: I think this allows too much freedom although I like the idea of being able to share and build upon each others work. Although, I also like that it allows for commercial use as well. Not that we will try to turn a profit on this, it is always better to keep the option open maybe Georgia Tech will use this information to make a book or the like. ckelly38

Support: The commercial use does not apply to our purposes of Buzzpedia, so it can be disregarded. It is good that with this license one can share the work as well as use it to create a new work. Also, it is good that whoever accesses the articles on Buzzpedia must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author. This way, proper recognition will be given to the original writer of the article. Alejandro Quintero

Oppose: This license is too free in what it lets others do with our work. Works could be created that undermine what we are trying to do with the Buzzpedia project or that alter the original purpose of the project. Sroka

Oppose I dont like the idea that a person can be able to simply cite a website in their work and remix it however they want to in order to show that it supports or rejects a point the person is trying to make in their work. This license does that, in the means that it allows one to alter the information given by us in such a way that it misleads the reader into thinking that our work is something that it is not. (i.e. a person may source us in a radical work about Brittian Dining Hall and then reword the information we provide in such a way as it misleads the reader about Buzzpedia's view on Brittian Dining Hall). GahamM1

Oppose: I agree with GahamM1 . This license leaves the door open for other individuals to use the Buzzpedia information and potentially skew such information. This license allows for too much freedom for other individuals to use our Buzzpedia work. cpowell32

Oppose: I agree with Pburdell, we all know that people are grinding at their teeth to be able to exploit the findings of buzzpedia, and this license truly is more of a wall of clouds rather than a brick wall against someone trying to take our work. Anmarievanwetering

Oppose: Honestly, the fact that individuals can take this information create a remix of it and then use it commercially and limit its distribution defeats the entire purpose of Buzzpedia. The best way for Buzzpedia to increase popularity is to use a Share-Alike license. GTXC

Oppose: The open-ended commercial part of the this license could breed disagreements as authors wouldn't like their massive hours of work used by another party to make full profits. It could be argued that it will spread Buzzpedia's content but it still remains exploitation.Philk30

Support: Those who opposed this license have no idea the benefit of this license being "free". Yes, this license may not be beneficial to personal, but it is definitely useful for BUZZPEDIA!!! The commercial use is needed in order to make people be reading about this project. Share-alike does not approach friendly to users anyway. And honestly who is going to earn money through Buzzpedia guys? Lets be honest about this. Using commercial license is not going to hurt. jwon32

Oppose: I think this license may be a little too open. I'd like for us to have a little more control over the content on Buzzpedia.Taylorskalyo

Oppose: This license allows somebody to alter the work, use it for commercial purposes, and release it under a different license. There is not enough restriction associated with this license. dn3

Support: Even though it's not very restrictive, this license still has potential for Buzzpedia. With its availability, this license makes Buzzpedia "friendly" for others to take and spread information from the site. To be honest, this project is only meant to spread information about Tech inaccessible to most so accreditation isn't all that important either. Hito

Oppose: This license seems to be too flexible for a classroom and grades setting. I think that it would be counter productive to the class because conflict can arise quickly with respect to the commercial part of the license. I know that we should not expect to gain any money based upon this website, however I would not like my ideas and effort that I put into this site to be stolen by a random person to create money. I think that the non commercial license is fair in that way. Benshep89

Support: We want Buzzpedia, its content and the history of Georgia Tech to spread through the internet and to be improved by outside readers. Outside, knowledgeable readers will not be interested in taking part or modifying an article which is restricted. They like freedom. Therefore this is the best option in order to attract those kind of contributors. We are doing a school project therefore we are not planning on making a profit of this, if someone has the idea and the abilities to make money of these texts then the"pay" we will get will be our name in the final product.Pablors

Oppose I think Buzzpedia should not be placed under this license, because the license lets others easily manipulate our articles, which may result in the spread of wrong information about Georgia Tech history. Since the license gives too much freedom, we need to have some restrictions in order to prevent others from altering the articles in a harmful way and putting it under a different license that allows commercialization. We do not want others make profit off of our hard work. Sji34

support: I support this license because it is open and allows people to freely use our information as long as they give us credit. Buzzpedia is not meant to be a small project that is one place where the public can go to find out information about Georgia Tech and its history and traditions. Gnacey3

Oppose I agree with many others;the main problem with the license suggested is the inclusion of commerical use permittance. However, I do agree strongly with the attribution requirement. Hwinter

Support I strongly believe that a small scale project such as our compared to other much highly notified projects such as Wikipedia, is small enough to have a "all free to do what you want" policy. I laugh at the idea of someone trying to commercialize our articles with any profit in mind. I love the idea of being able to freely share and edit all types of work in collaboration. tannershirah

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License

License

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License

Briefs

Survey

Support: I feel that is license is the one which will help us achieve our Buzzpedia goals. We are likening our Buzzpedia to Wikipedia and so it is only fitting that we use the Attribution-ShareAlike license, which is used by Wikipedia now. It will allow users to edit, adapt the work, and license it under similar terms, but still gives credit to its original author. No one user should be in control of the information they post; the reason Wikipedia, and in turn our Buzzpedia, was made was to collaborate on articles that would be knowledgeable to people. If an error is made within a work, this license would allow for an easy, efficient way to correct it through use of other users. ckelly38

Support: The Attribution-ShareAlike license, currently used by the Wikipedia, seems to be a good fit for our Buzzpedia project. Sharing allows distribution of our website to the mass public while remixing permits adaptations of the work. Through attribution authors of the site will be given credit for their work. In addition, share alike promotes others building upon Buzzpedia when the current users are no longer authors. Hyarosh3

Support: I definitely support this license and feel like it would be the best fit for our Buzzpedia page. The Attribution-ShareAlike license is already used for organizations such as Citizendium and Wikipedia, both of which greatly resemble our Buzzpedia pages already. The license also provides commercial benefits. Though our class will most likely not make a commercial profit out of the Buzzpedia pages and articles, it is always good to have this option available for us if we decide to change this in the future. Prajeevan3

Support: This license provides the wiki with just the right amount of freedom, copyright-wise. There are virtually no restrictions except the commercial reuse details. Users will be able to freely edit each other's articles to improve them. Also, because our aim is not to make a profit, making commercial reuse a little hard to do shouldn't be an issue. If we later decide to sell articles on the site, then the option is still open. Mhotle 13:44, 26 October 2010 (EDT)

Oppose: Even though this license does have the share alike provision that I very much condone, it doesn't take care of the commercial use issues. I think that the non-commerical provision is VERY important and thus this license isn't as good of fit for Buzzpedia as some of the others are. JPMorgan 20:20, 26 October 2010 (EDT)

Oppose: This license offers many beneficial things for our Buzzpedia but like JPMorgan i believe that the license Buzzpedia uses should have a non-commercial clause. Cw34

Support: This license is very useful when it comes to things like our Buzzpedia. I support it because with this license we can go around the website and edit with out any complications. With this type of license in place users will be more likley to become a part of the actual Buzzpedia community and process and will add, due to the openness and lack of restrictions that this license offers.Anilsson3 21:20, 26 October 2010(EDT)

Support: This license keeps everyone on the same page with respect to derivative works. Derivative works must follow the license of the original work. As for the commercial use, this license leaves that option open. I think that is a viable option that should be allowed for the possibility of commercial use in the future. cpowell32

Support: This license is a little more strict than the first one, which could be a good thing, because it provides more stability for the wiki. Commercial use should be left open, which this wiki does, although it is unlikely buzzpedia will create interest for commercial uses, why stop the opportunity from arising? norangio3

Support: This license would appropriate for preserving the purpose of Buzzpedia. It lets other people use our work, while protecting the original authors. Also the fact that any derivative works are also protected by the same license is also a good way to protect the information. cfarsi

Support: The Share-Alike license is the best choice in my opinion. I do not think that commercial uses can be harmful under this license, as credit must be given to Buzzpedia; in any case, we would benefit from the increased traffic to the site, and if we used a license with a non-commercial restriction, the utility of the site is decreased for its audience. Furthermore, requiring an identical license ensures that we receive credit even from secondhand citations. wbaldwin6

Support: The Share-Alike license is the best fit for our Buzzpedia. Buzzpedia is mirror image of Wikipedia; consequently, the Share-Alike license, which is used by Wikipedia, will allow Buzzpedia to function in the exact same way, allowing Buzzpedia to grow as much as possible. GTXC

Support: I definitely support this license as it provides for derivative works to be produced, but under the same license. So it allows for the most exposure possible for Buzzpedia but protecting the work as a whole at the same time. Even if derivatives are made, it must be accredited to Buzzpedia (as proposed by us) and thereby protecting the original purpose of the project. Amontano

Support: This license is the best choice for use on Buzzpedia for multiple reasons. First, it assures that authors will be given credit for their work, which heightens the credibility of the website and Georgia Tech. Also, it does not prevent commercial use. One of the main goals of Buzzpedia is to expand and develop with regard to the outside-campus world. It will be very tough to achieve this goal without allowing commercial use. However, the derivative works, whether commercial or non-commercial, should be released under the same license as the original. dn3

Oppose: I think a license for a class project such as Buzzpedia should have a non-commercial clause. It is really hard to get everyone to agree on what anything let alone once money is involved. Buzzpedia will be a better product if it had a non-commercial clause. cthomsen6

Support This is the best license for Buzzpedia because it enable all of us to edit each others' work as long as we credit each other. It also guarantees that if third parties use our work then they must release it under this same license and credit us with the original work. Matt Ballantine

Oppose: Having the commercial option open to anybody who has access to the internet can lead to legal issues between us, Tech, and the other party. The other non-commercial license does not completely get rid of the commercial option, but it provides a safe guard to control who and what uses Buzzpedia for commercial benefits.Jpham7

Support To share our Buzzpedia information to various websites and other resource is good to gather more people to engage in our Buzzpedia. Since, this society is community work, we need more people to suggest and develope more. choi1991

Oppose: I agree with Jpham7. I also believe that for the sake of our work as a class, we shouldn't let people steal our ideas for profit. I don't expect any money for the project, but I don't want anybody making money off of the time I spent working on the Buzzpedia project. Benshep89

Oppose: I am very much against share-alike. This license is similar to the GNU license in that all subsequent works must be released under the same license. These licences spread like the plague and reduce the rights of people who use Buzzpedia content to exercise choice over copyright license for their content. If we adopt a share-alike license, there is only one result... socialism. Jmaliakal

Support: I support this open license, I think the share-alike makes sure the original authors wishes are followed. If someone makes a derivative of your work it is not their own original work and must follow the wishes of the original author. Gnacey3

Support: I feel like this license is the best blend of openness and control. taylorskalyo

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License

License

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License

Briefs

Survey

Support This attribution license in many ways is both very free and quite limiting. It ensures that the original creators of the article are well credited and not taken advantage of for any particular reason. Dthakkar8

Support This license creates an incentive to create articles and provides flexibility through the waiver clause in it. It also provides adequate attribution to the original author of a derivative work. Torus12

Oppose I think that this license is simply impractical to the means of Buzzpedia. The idea behind this license is that one cannot make sell a product containing our info and then try to sell it. However that person may remix, edit, or cut-out something that could make it their own work as long as the work has been cited. This license is similar to being able to listen to a playlist of songs on the internet, but not being allowed to download them or sell them. GahamM1

Oppose I don't like the idea of people making derivative works of our articles outside of buzzpedia. Even if attribution is credited, someone could really change the meaning of our facts eventually deluting the reliability of the site. Plus, if one person gives us attribution for taking our facts, we get credit, but if those facts get taken from them by someone else, someone else will get credit for our hard work. Alysharudnik

Support I really like the fact that you can change the license can alter whether its commercial or not. I like the flexibility that the license offer. I think its good that the license can be altered just in case we as a community don't exactly like the format or anything like that. Anilsson3

Support I consider this licensese as optimal for our buzzpedia since in essense that buzzpedia is a owned by the community consists of student with their original work for non-commercial uses. Within the community sharing of others work are beneficial and it is done only with the collaboration and recognition. Yujie

Support This license is ideal for the classroom setting. I believe that the non commercial aspect of the license justifies our work on the project and allows it to not be put to waste. Benshep89

Support I am in favor of this license because it gives us some flexibility while at the same time it has enough restictions to protect buzzpedia. Cw34

Support This license is ideal for Buzzpedia. Easily attribution makes our Buzzpedia information easier to share with everybody and non-commercial is ideal to protect our articles and authors.

Oppose: I think Buzzpedia should be placed under this license, because the non-commercial clause prevents others from making profit off of our hard work and allows for derivative works, letting others remix or build upon it as long as you they give Buzzpedia credit we will be recognized as a reputable source and more people be will educated on Georgia Tech history and tradition which was the goal of Buzzpedia. Gnacey3

Support This license has just enough flexibility to give both the makers and the users of Buzzpedia fair advantages, while also protecting the work as a whole. While some of the other licenses may boast to be more protective to the writers and our contents, they provide a great deal of restrictions to the people who will be reading the site. While it's very good to be safe as opposed to sorry, if we really want Buzzpedia to expand, then we should definitely try to cater to our audience. MauBas

Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License

License

Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License

Briefs

Survey

Oppose I like the idea of an original author's control over his or her article, but I believe this license may be too rigid. Creativity and constructive editing may be hindered. Commercial issues may also arise. Torus12

Support This license allows us to establish and define Buzzpedia without other projects undermining or altering the purpose of Buzzpedia. If someone wants to create a derivative work with a different purpose we can always grant them that right, otherwise why wouldn't they just join Buzzpedia and alter Buzzpedia itself? Also I don't see Buzzpedia having many commercial issues especially since all the information that could be gathered and sold is free on the site. In addition it could probably be argued that the commercial item created from using Buzzpedia falls under the category of a derivative work and; thus, disallowed. Sroka

Support I dont want researchers to write essays that re-word everything that we say. That creates the potential danger of having readers be misguided about the information we provide. I think that it is a great idea for people to have to attain our permission before they use our information. I have no problem with this, but I do not want to be hassled two years from now from a high school student writing a research paper about colleges in Atlanta sking me for permission. GahamM1

chances are they won't even ask for permission regardless of which license we use. We'd be lucky if they are even allowed to use us as a source considering we look like wikipedia. Fradac


Oppose I agree with Torus12. The idea of the original author having control over the changes to his article; if we decide to choose a license with a a waiver clause, this may be something to consider. But, I think it may be too strict with regards to derivative works: it doesn't allow derivative works (initially). I realize that with all of the licenses certain aspects may be changed with waiver clauses. But if we start to change the basics of the original license then the reformed license may be that of another license entirely (i.e. Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike, etc.) It's just something to consider as we pick the right license for our Buzzpedia. cpowell32


Support This license is beneficial to Buzzpedia and the contributors in the sense it preserves our hard work. Allowing continual interpretation of secondary sources such as buzzpedia, buzzpedia's sources, and the sources' sources (if any), etc. only distorts the factual information. Under Buzzpedia we have controlled guidelines and strict policies that allow us to present the information as formal and fit to the Georgia Tech community and buzzpedia community. The information in this page is not only symbolic to English 1101, but also Georgia Tech therefore a strict license should be used in regards to how one may extract data and text from this site for the sake of this project's image and Georgia Tech's respect. This license does not prevent sharing, it merely enforces direct sharing without altering the information, for which we should promote considering we are now a sort of database, a compilation of the Georgia Tech archives, Library, and other significant internet sources. Plus if there is a question of 'hindering' creativity involved, if one chooses to "remix- to adapt the work" one can do it directly onto buzzpedia and there will be oversight on the process through moderators, policies, etc. This way preserving our vision of how we want the factual information presented. Adding on and contribution should be done directly in a unified place rather than through a third party, this keeps things simpler and under buzzpedia community's overview. Also, a thing to consider is suppose this website by the end of the semester does indeed become a significant source of information useful to the Georgia Tech institution, a hard copy can be made with 1:1 transcription (mandatory 1:1 transcription under this license) of the text on this site for the Library Archives, which is also responsible in preserving literature on and of Tech's culture and history. Fradac

P.S. I agree with GahamM1's and Sroka's input.

Support If buzzpedia is going to be used as a source for Georgia Tech, allowing others to take and alter our content freely would undermine the purpose of the project in the first place. I'd feel more comfortable with people editing through our wiki so that moderators and other contributors can check the edits and make sure they're benefitting to the site. Also, the waiver allows us to make any necessary changes if we feel that they best serve buzzpedia's purpose. If there are disputes, the waiver can help form a compromise. Alysharudnik

Support I completely agree with the previous comment. If people change our work, then the content taken from the archives will be changed, and that completely changes our Buzzpedia. As creators of this work, we should be able to moderate what gets edited and what does not. So I support this license, because our hard work will not get destroyed, and we can better control what goes on later on with Buzzpedia. kmurugathasan

Oppose Although this license attempts to protect the original purpose of Buzzpedia, I feel like it is going about it in the wrong way. Instead of keeping a replica work under the same license, it completely blocks the creation of derivative works which allow for more exposure for the site. All in all not a bad license, just a tad too restricting. Amontano

Support The no-derivative clause of this license attributes the work directly back to the author allowing the work to be exactly what the author intended. No-derivatives also allows the history to stay accurate. No one can change any of the facts that each of us diligently collected from the archives. cthomsen6

Oppose I do not like this license because it does not allow people to easily go in and edit articles. This license doesn’t let people easily edit articles which defeats the purpose of the committees and discourages people from editing articles to make them better. Cw34

Support: I think the attribution and no-derivatives makes people who use our work use it how the author intended and give the author credit for their individual work that they have done. People can use our work for commercial use, but must quote and give Buzzpedia credit. Gnacey3

Oppose: I think that the no derivatives clause of this license is unnecessarily restrictive.taylorskalyo

Clarification

As far as I understood/interpreted it this license didn't mean you couldn't sign up for Buzzpedia then change an article at will without having to contact the author. And as I understand the Governance policy any article can be changed at will although if conflict arises over the change then discussions will be opened about the change. Do others have a different opinion? Sroka

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike License

License

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike License

Briefs


Survey

Support I believe this license is best because Buzzpedia is a free encyclopedia, and derivative works of Buzzpedia should be free as well. This license also ensures that each derivative work will be licensed under the same terms- in other words, derivatives works can not be manipulated to provide others with the opportunity to make profits off of them.--Kdease3 20:57, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

Support: I also think that this license is very versatile and offers the most freedom. This way, it will create a sense of freedom but also protect the author's works from being exploited for money |Silent Protagonist

Support: I too think that this would be the most effective license for Buzzpedia. It allows others to use and adapt the information, but protects not only us (by giving us attribution) but also furthers the creative commons licensing ideas. JPMorgan 11:15, 25 October 2010 (EDT)

Support I believe that this particular Creative Commons would work best for Buzzpedia because it allows those who wish to use the works we have compiled the ability to do so relatively easily as well as provides restrictions to make it fair for all those involved. It makes sure that Buzzpedia receives proper credit, it makes sure that the ones who adapt the work of Buzzpedia share their work under the same license, and it prevents others from making money off of something that they did not work for. --Swatts 15:36, 25 October 2010 (EDT)

Support I agree with the above statements. This license will also encourage the expansion of the Buzzpedia community. The people will have free will of taking what they need and adding what they want from Buzzpedia. This will allow Buzzpedia to grow in number of articles and people. This license will also discourage any copy sites being create and diluting Buzzpedia value on the web, because there is no commercial incentive for the new creators. Jpham7

Support I support this license as it protects the original author from being used through the Non-Commercial clause and Share-Alike clause. The Share-Alike and Derivative clauses enables the spread of articles from Buzzpedia and increases the popularity of Buzzpedia. Philk30

Support I agree with this license for the fact that the ShareAlike and Derivative clauses of the license allow for other people to share the work as they need and see fit. Also, the Non-Commercial aspect of the license takes care of the concern for the commercial problem of other companies making money off of what we have created. Emmaline35

Support I support this license because it protects Buzzpedia with the many different features it offers. Also people will not be able to make a profit off of our work, and be able to take credit for something that one did not accomplish. However, if we ever decide as a group to expose it commercially, there is a waiver clause allowing it to be commercially used. I think this offers a lot of flexibility in many different areas but also has many limitations that will protect us. I vote for this one! I think this license best-fits our purpose of Buzzpedia, and will make sure that it will be successful. kmurugathasan3

Oppose NonCommercial does not really apply to Buzzpedia, and that will more than likely be the case over its entirety. Even if the articles were used in commercial means, it would come back to Tech as it spreads its name around through popular mediums(such as t.v. and magazines). Allowing for derivatives also opens our articles to editions we may not approve of; however each person has a different opinion on that matter. Hito

Support This license offers many benefits. It allows people to edit articles easily while at the same time has enough restrictions to protect the writers. I also like how if people copy the information they have to use a similar license. Cw34

Support I believe that our Buzzpedia license should definitely include a non-commerical clause. We don't want people to profit off our our hard work if we are creating it without pay. It would be unfair for others to benefit commercially from our academic work. I particularly like the "share-alike" clause because it allows people to alter our work to their needs. Allowing them to remix the work is also an added benefit of this license Prabbat

Supports The Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike License is the most effective license to use for our Buzzpedia. This license is the most effective license for our purpose, as it both protects our work and allows the researcher to make edits to it, as long as he or she cites the source. The continued use of this information will also have a license due to the share alike clause, which will ensure that our work will always be protected by a license. In addition, the freedoms this license allows the researcher to utilize, such as remixing the work and sharing it, will attract users to our Buzzpedia to reference the site more often. pchevalier3

Oppose: I think Buzzpedia should be placed under this license, because the non-commercial clause prevents others from making profit off of our hard work and allows for derivative works, letting others remix or build upon it as long as you they give Buzzpedia credit we will be recognized as a reputable source and more people be will educated on Georgia Tech history and tradition which was the goal of Buzzpedia. Gnacey3

Support Buzzpedia, at the present time, needs to grow and make a presence in the outside world. This can only be effectively be accomplished with this license because it had flexibility by allowing derivative works, but strict enough because it requires attribution, and that all derivative works be be published under the same or similar license. It also is non-comercial. Greivousfan226

Oppose In order for Buzzpedia to become an expansive work, it would be best to leave off the share alike clause. Having share alike would hinder the extension to a varying audience who would like to use our work. If we're considering becoming a relevant, useful source of information that is accessible to all those who stumble upon it, we should definitely consider a more flexible license that a user would be more willing to follow. MauBas

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives

License

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives License

Briefs

Survey

Support I support this license because it is the strictest of all the licenses, meaning we're protected more and there's less of a chance that some one will find a loop hole or something and take our work. As long as we treat the articles as a work in progress and not a finished project until the end of the semester, this license works perfectly. Anmarievanwetering

Support I support this license as well. It's important that we have a No-Derivatives clause because when people try to change our work without even having access to the appropriate resources like the archives, it can change the content and increase inaccuracy. Non-commercial also makes sure that no one takes our hard work and uses it for their own financial gain without our permission or knowledge. As long as we can still have people adding information to Buzzpedia with a user log in, this is the most appropriate license for our site. Tameema

Support We developed buzzpedia to preserve a piece of Gatech history, as a academic history resource, the buzzpedia should not be used in commercial acts and should not altered during the process of distribution. Therefore, this is the best license for buzzpedia. lliu

Oppose This license is too strict for our buzzpedia project. Since you must have the author's permission to edit the article, I believe that buzzpedia will not be able to compare to the growth speed of Wikipedia, which we are modeling our site after. Clofdahl3

Oppose I think this license is not ideal for buzzpedia since it discrouge collaboration and limit the creativity of the community. The buzzpedia is built to be open and also encourging participation of studets. Yujie

Oppose I oppose this license because of its lack of flexibility. Although it gives the original author credit and protects the site from exploitation in commercial purposes, it discourages creativity by the community. Our goal is to expand our site and the community as a whole, not limit it to the confines set by this license. Torus12

Oppose Honestly, i like all the idea except non commercial. We need to come up with what is the true meaning of using information in a commercial way. You guys only talked about the commercial way as just an advertisement on website or tv (music, etc) But i am talking about small situation where a random person uses another's source for his/her career, but its not that big deal that his work will be well known. But still he is "advertising" his work and obviously the work was presented in (indriect) way toward his future (a step to get promoted, so basically we can say he is using it commercially) So, what i am trying to say here is that its really vague to know the difference between non commercial and commercial use. Then it is worth just permitting commercial license (less debate) license. So I oppose. jwon32

Oppose I think this license is too restrictive. It would be better in my opinion, to keep the website as open as possible, especially now in it's early stages of development, to allow Buzzpedia to expand as much as possible. Taylorskalyo

Oppose This license will not allow Buzzpedia to rely on the community aspect of the project because there are too many restrictions. It will be tedious and complicated to make guidelines/rules/decisions about waivers for all of the license restrictions. Less restrictions would help expansion of Buzzpedia because there would be more use of the website by other users outside of our class. Hyarosh3


Oppose This license is too strict. Nobody will know about Buzzpedia if derivative works aren't created that somehow prove that Buzzpedia was the original source of the information. Benshep89

Oppose: This license is too restrictive on what people can do with the information, Buzzpedia will not be benefited from adopting this license.

Oppose: This license is too restrictive for Buzzpedia. It gives the author too much power because they have the final say on what to edit in their article. All of the contributors should be able to easily edit other authors articles. Cw34

Oppose This license would prevent Buzzpedia from growing. It assumes that most people would attempt to tweak our work to create a negative image. It would be too much of a hassle to continually issue waivers to those who want to use our information for good use. Also, many people would be turned away by the "verbatim" requirement. Prabbat

Oppose Buzzpedia will be highly restricted from growing by this license. The spirit of Buzzpedia is kind of same with Wikipedia: build a better community. The license will stop us from growing.

Oppose This license is very restricting. I agree with the noncommercial aspect, but I don't agree on the no derivatives part. It shouldn't matter if anyone builds upon our work if they give us proper credit for our due part anyway. kzaman3

Oppose The Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license is the most restrictive type of license we can use. With this being said, it should be taken into consideration that although this license protects us and our work to the fullest, it does not encourage people to reference our work. Taking away virtually any freedom that the researcher has with a reference gives him no desire to use that reference. We do not want to scare away our target viewers only to make sure our work is protected thoroughly. pchevalier3

Oppose: I think Buzzpedia should be placed under this license, because the non-commercial clause prevents others from making profit off of our hard work and allows for derivative works, letting others remix or build upon it as long as you they give Buzzpedia credit we will be recognized as a reputable source and more people be will educated on Georgia Tech history and tradition which was the goal of Buzzpedia. Gnacey3


Support Buzzpedia has a primary objective, to be a credible and reliable source for information regarding Georgia Tech. In order to accomplish this goal we need to establish and maintain credibility. Through the creative commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license we will be better able to establish and maintain credibility. The attribution aspect is important for receiving credit when cited. The non commercial aspect serves as protection against other groups use of our work for profitable material. If anyone should profit from Buzzpedia it should be Georgia Tech or us, the contributors. The no derivatives clause protects us from other groups remixing our work. While this does not seem to be a large threat, it could still have a sizable impact on our credibility if the remix paints Buzzpedia in a negative light. In the event that an outside group wants to use our product in a manner that we deem reasonable, we have the ability to grant a waver of our rights to allow their usage. John Tillotson

Support As our group (G4) stated, this license allows Buzzpedia's content to be shared without being stolen and remixed in a way we as the creators of Buzzpedia did not intend. Unlike my group's license, this license mandates noncommercial usage of content; this prevents others from making a profit without our permission. Jmaliakal

Support: This license is the most restrictive so it protects us the most. Also, it allows for interpretation with the waiver that is included with the license. --Tolarewaju3 18:58, 31 October 2010 (EDT)

Oppose: Because our purpose is to spread information that isn't widely available to the public, we should not be concerned with policing derivative works or commercial reuse. These will only help spread Buzzpedia. This license is too strict and discourages community collaboration. Mhotle 01:39, 30 October 2010 (EDT)

Oppose I agree with many others: the main problem with the license suggested is the exclusion of a commerica-use ban. However, I feel the attribution requirement is nessisary and fitting for this assignment. Hwinter

Oppose: I don't think the non-commercial restraint is an issue, but the fact that no one may build upon our work with this license would be unfavorable for Buzzpedia since it would likely limit the number of users since they can't use it to create their own works. Alejandro Quintero

Clarification

As far as I understood/interpreted it this license didn't mean you couldn't sign up for Buzzpedia then change an article at will without having to contact the author. And as I understand the Governance policy any article can be changed at will although if conflict arises over the change then discussions will be opened about the change. Do others have a different opinion? Sroka

Personal tools