Talk:Obama's transition website 'frees the content'

Revision 734799 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Very good! ♪TempoDiValse♪ 15:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 734799 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Very good! ♪TempoDiValse♪ 15:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Concerns from the comments page

There seem to be some concerns at the comments page that content on change.gov ought to be PD-USGov. It seems reasonable as the change website is .gov which is only issued by the federal government. If change.gov is tagged CC-BY-3.0 with attribution required, then it is more restrictive than public domain which has no such restrictions. --SVTCobra 00:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Change.gov is not run by the federal government, but by the Obama-Biden Transition Project, a 501(c)4 non-profit organization. Its content is not in the public domain. --+Deprifry+ 12:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Covered in the article, now. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but now you've started another point of contention. You wrote, "they are required to release their creations under any free license." Where do you get that idea? Or is it a typo? --SVTCobra 15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wherever he got the idea, it's wrong. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. Never heard of that before. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mention of wikinews?

I'm concerned that we mention wikinews in the text this way. We are not the most prominent example of an organization using the CC license and it seems needless self-referential. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to the end, and mentioned Flickr as well. I think that it is justified to have it mentioned, such a self-reference wouldn't be out of place in other media outlets (not that most other outlets use free licenses, but if they did), but placing it front and center isn't justified. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)