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

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Concerns from the comments page[edit]

There seem to be some concerns at the comments page that content on ought to be PD-USGov. It seems reasonable as the change website is .gov which is only issued by the federal government. If 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)Reply[reply] 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)Reply[reply]
Covered in the article, now. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Wherever he got the idea, it's wrong. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just thinking the same thing. Never heard of that before. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mention of wikinews?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]