Jump to content

Wikinews/Licensure Poll/Hr

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Nakon neformalnog glasanja da saznamo šta mislite, vreme je da konačno donesemo odluku o licenci za projekat Wikivesti.

Prevodi:

Bs - De - En - Fr - Hr - It - Ja - Sr

Ovo je optše, glasanje, otvoreno za sve učesnike Wikivesti na svim jezicima. Možete da glasate isključivo ako dodate link ka svojoj korisničkoj stranici na Wikivestima gdje ste aktivni. Glasanje se završava u 0000UTC 14.9.2005.

BSD or similar non-copyleft

[edit]

Wikinewsies:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Dysprosia 22:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (n,w,b) -- it's simple, it's easy, it's open and free...[reply]
  2. --Deprifry 11:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The bellman 04:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Its not quite as good as the Wikinews license cause it refers to source code and what not, but still, short, sweet, concise and not overly legalistic. (The bellman)[reply]
    The source code of a Wikinews article can be interpreted as its wikitext representation. The text of the license can be slightly edited to apply to Wikinews; or it can be completely adapted but with the original spirit, like the WNL 0.2 below. Dysprosia 02:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Taichi - (^_^) 06:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm pro-BSD. Nmontague 03:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 00:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (n:fr:Utilisateur:Hégésippe Cormier)[reply]

Others:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Deego 15:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC) -- Does not protect derivatives.[reply]
  2. Almafeta 19:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC) -- 'BSD or similar' means we aren't being told just what license provisions, exactly, we're voting on.[reply]
    • Being unclear on what you're voting on is no reason to oppose it. In any case, yes, you are being told what license provisions you are voting on, namely the BSD 3-clause license linked to above, or similar licenses such as the MIT/X11 clause which is equivalent to a 2-clause BSD license, that are in the same spirit as the BSD license. Dysprosia 07:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-SA 2.5

[edit]

Glasamo za licencu Creative Commons-Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5, pripisanu Wikivestima. S ovom licencom, svako može da koristi naše članke, sve dok prepozna Wikivesti (ceo projekat) kao originalnog autora i izda članak kao CC-BY-SA 2.5.

Ceo tekst licence je dostupan ovdje.

Možete da glasate samo za ili protiv ove licence. Ne zaboravite da dodate link ka ličnoj stranici na Wikivesti projektu na kome ste aktivni. Komentare ostavite na stranici za razgovor.

Wikinewsies:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 00:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (n:fr:Utilisateur:Hégésippe Cormier)[reply]

Others:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Deego 15:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC) -- Protects derivatives.[reply]

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-


CC-BY 2.5

[edit]

Wikinewsies:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Dysprosia 22:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (n,w,b) -- weakly in support, due to its similarity with the much simpler and less complex BSD license. If support for BSD or BSD-type licenses fails this would be my second choice.[reply]
  2. tsca ✉ (n:pl:user:tsca) / 08:46:18, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
  3. Deprifry 11:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. McCart42 13:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC) en I find this a good, simple option. To those who say it is too complicated (and the BSD license is better for this reason): have you seen the human-readable summary? It's not CC's fault that lawyers like legalese. They wrote three versions of it: one for humans, one for computers (so you can use plugins like mozcc to show license information as you browse), and one for lawyers. Don't just read the one for lawyers and say it's too complex - I'm sure you wouldn't want to read the one for computers either. To be fair, I don't have a problem with BSD license, but I don't think it does anything different than CC-by. (see also for the mozilla addons page for mozcc)[reply]
    Releasing one's content under an open license musn't be done frivolously, it's important to understand the implications of releasing content under a certain license. CC-by's legalese makes this more difficult. One must read the legalese to fully understand it, the "version for humans" does not exactly spell everything out either. I completely comprehend the implications etc. of the BSD license; I don't with CC-by. That's all I was trying to say re. the complexity of CC-by. Dysprosia 02:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Datrio 13:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SonicR 14:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC) de[reply]
  7. Sblive 17:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Brent Dax 17:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. stv ✉ 19:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Faager 20:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC) fr Although I don't think it does perfectly suit our requirements...[reply]
  11. Eloquence 22:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC) (I would prefer public domain, but the international legal situation would make that more of an activist than a practical stance)[reply]
  12. IlyaHaykinson 02:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC) (en) — strongly support due to minimum of restrictions on reusing content.[reply]
  13. Aphaia++ 06:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC) (ja)[reply]
  14. Spe88 (talk) Support
  15. TUFKAAP I believe CC-BY is a good lisence.
  16. Habakuk 13:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC) n:de:benutzer:habakuk[reply]
  17. Derbeth 10:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (pl)[reply]
  18. ClareWhite 11:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC) en[reply]
  19. Ascánder 13:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Munchkinguy 02:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC) My vote stays with this one unless I can see more details on the "Wikinews License".[reply]
    What you see with the WNL, is what you get - there's no need for more "detail". That's the beauty of it. Licenses don't have to be the badly written monstrosities the CC ones are. Dan100 07:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Patio 07:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC) nl[reply]
    Please indicate the language edition of Wikinews you participate with. - Amgine 20:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. da Pete 21:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC) de[reply]
  23. This is the only one, that makes sense. --DaB. 13:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. PiaCarrot 22:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC) -- Some edition(For example, Japanese) is licensed under CC-BY, so I think Wikinews should be licenced at least under CC-BY. ja.wn[reply]
  25. --Taichi - (^_^) 06:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Kaldari 15:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Marshaü 20:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Dan100 17:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC) I much prefer our home-grown WNL 0.2.[reply]
  2. soufron This License is not written for such specific content as Wikinews. I already spent hours on IRC trying to help people figure out what it means. It looks simple at first, but it's quite complicated when you go further. Still, it would be a great choice as dual-licensing. The WNL 0.2 is way better !
  3. Cspurrier 19:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC) WNL 0.2 is a much better choice.[reply]
  4. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC) (n:fr:Utilisateur:Hégésippe Cormier)[reply]

Others:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-


Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Deego 15:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC) -- Does not protect derivatives.[reply]
    • Ian Eiloart -- Actually, clause 4b requires that derivative works credit the Original Author (the wiki).
      • Deego 17:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Ian, well this comes down to the GPL vs BSD debate. I guess, when I meant "protect", I meant protect the right of the user to copy, not protect the attribution for the author (not that I am opposed to the latter).[reply]
      • BTW, discussing this on #wikinews, people have mentioned how the self-propagation clause of copyleft licenses leads to incompatibilities among variuos licenses. I would like to say that:
        • I am not sure that is strictly true. GPL, I think, does not ask that derivatives be GPLed too. It just asks that derivatives provide the same rights and restrictions. FSF maintains a compatibility database.
        • Even if that were true, the license of emacswiki (see the bottom of that page) is an example of n-al licensing under a host of copyleft licenses, perhaps with a view to address this problem. This license is also followed by an irc-bot which freely shares with emacswiki.
  2. Almafeta 19:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL

[edit]

Copyleft license. [1] Used by Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikicommons (as default license for media). Two-way compatibility with other Wikimedia projects. May in the future become two-way compatibile with CC-BY-SA (discussions about this are under way). Even proponents acknowledge its complexity and some problematic aspects (see e.g. Why you shouldn't use the GNU FDL for a detailed discussion).

Wikinewsies:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Syohei.A(talk) 13:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remember to specify what Wikinews language project you are from, or please move you vote the Others section. --Cspurrier 15:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    n:ja:利用者:Araisyohei on ja.wikinews - Amgine 23:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Deprifry 11:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Please don't. Do you want to add 5 pages of licence to every print edition we publish?[reply]
  2. Cspurrier 12:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC) en Would kill the Print Edition and Audio Wikinews.[reply]
  3. McCart42 13:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC) en If we ever hope to be able to distribute Wikinews in print anywhere, we must come up with a solution to the 5-page license information issue. Don't vote for GFDL unless you either don't believe this is a problem or can present some practical solution.[reply]
  4. Datrio 13:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. APPER 16:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sblive 17:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC) It's a kind of non-sense! If we want the wikinews content to be republished, we can't force republishers into showing full list of authors etc.[reply]
  7. Aphaia++ 06:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Concur with Cspurrier; GFDL doesn't fit broadcasting.[reply]
  8. Dan100 17:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Let's face it, it's rubbish. It's only used by Wikipedia as it was the only thing around at the time.[reply]
  9. Mrmiscellanious 19:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC) I would hardly call this license a "free license". Definitely not the option for Wikinews.[reply]
  10. Schaengel89 @me 18:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kaldari 19:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC). Please no. GFDL is a terrible license for this purpose.[reply]

Others:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Deego 15:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC) -- Protects derivatives.[reply]
  2. Moa3333. Wikinews is more usefull online because people can edit pages. If a wikinewpaper has two pages at the end with the GFDL, more people will be aware of the importance of a free licence. The most important in a wiki is that people are able to edit pages, and not how easy the wiki can be printed in a non-wiki paper-based format (not speaking about DRM...). Are we, the world wiki community, in an open internet-based world or in a paper-based and DRM-based world? However, still hoping the GFDL will improve in the future. (Moa3333 14:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    Please remember to specify what Wikinews language project you are from, or please move you vote to the Others section. --Cspurrier 15:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Votes have beeen moved --Cspurrier 12:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Node ue 05:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-


Wikinews licence 0.1

[edit]

Neither the GFDL nor the CC licenses are written to apply to Wikinews's content type. Only a Wikinews license would allow us to describe our legal needs in a detailed and precised way.

Also, these licenses were written by third-parties instead of being directly created by the community when the process of writing such a license (between two weeks and one month). Working an a proper license for Wikinews would allow contributors to better understand the mechanisms of IP licensing, to better know what they exactly need, and to eventually chose what other license the content could be dual-licensed with.

The text of the Wikinews License Proposal is here : WNL 0.1.

Wikinewsies:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Cspurrier 12:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC) en - A great choice, we need a license that is written with us in mind[reply]
  2. Mrmiscellanious (en.wikinews) 19:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC) We need our own license, free of any association from the others (such as GNU, CC and BSD), in order to fit our needs. We're unique - we will most likely need to change things based on actions as they occur.[reply]
  3. Wikipedia , over all, needs his own license for their work, wikipedia is an evolution, and it should stay this way Bamtelim 00:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 00:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (n:fr:Utilisateur:Hégésippe Cormier)[reply]
  2. Brent Dax (Brent Dax 16:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)) — I cannot in good faith support continued license fragmentation.[reply]
  3. It's too much complicated for us to build a license. --DaB. 13:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Schaengel89 @me 18:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kaldari 19:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC). Stop license fragmentation. Please.[reply]

Others:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Petrusbarbygere 01:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Anthony DiPierro 11:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC) To likely to become a non-free license, such as one requiring a link to Wikinews.[reply]
  2. Almafeta 19:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deego 14:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC) Does not protect derivatives[reply]
  4. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews License 0.2

[edit]

Wikinews License 0.2 is based on the BSD license, modified to apply specifically to Wikinews articles and with some simplifications.

The benefits of this license are:

  • Wikinews maintains it, so modifications may be implemented swiftly
  • The language is simple and designed to easily translate to many languages and legal systems.
  • There are almost no restrictions.

Please see the legal code at WNL 0.2.

Wikinewsies:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Dysprosia 22:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (n,w,b) -- nice! Not bad at all.[reply]
  2. Deprifry 11:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cspurrier 12:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC) en As close to PD as we can get, my top choice.[reply]
  4. The bellman 04:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC) first choice. very nice indeed. (en)[reply]
  5. Dan100 17:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC) I think it's spot-on - exactly what we need.[reply]
  6. AppleBoy 19:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Using your own license is the best way to go as far as I'm concerned[reply]
  7. soufron This License is simple, precise and powerful. It's the perfect choice and we can make it evolve when needed since it has been written by the community!
    Please indicate which language edition of Wikinews you participate with. - Amgine 20:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 00:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (n:fr:Utilisateur:Hégésippe Cormier)[reply]
  9. Ascánder 13:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Bawolff 21:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (n:user:Bawolff) Support[reply]
  11. Apollo2011 00:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Carlosar 21:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Messedrocker (en.wikinews) 03:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC) - My favorite part is the fact it's very lax.[reply]
  14. --Taichi - (^_^) 06:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I am also pro-WNL2. Nmontague 03:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. NGerda 17:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC) - Too much restriction on content.[reply]
    What restrictions? Dan100
  2. IlyaHaykinson 00:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC) I would support this licence if a new version was issued with the following changes: removal of restriction to print and digital media only (what? no broadcast?); definitions for terms like Original Authors, Contributors, Copyright Holders, Copyright Owner, and Wikinews; the removal of the requirement for redistributing the license for derivative works (to make it more like CC-BY than CC-BY-SA), and the removal of the confusing prohibition on using the name of Wikinews for promotion while giving credit to Wikinews. In short, please see Wikinews/WIKINEWS LICENSE PROPOSAL : WNL 0.3 for my idea.[reply]
    The promotion issue is a pretty standard BSD-esque clause; it prevents the case where a possibly inferior derivative work is distributed, the clause prevents the distributors of this derivative from saying that Wikinews endorses it, since otherwise the inferior quality of the derivative work maybe associated with Wikinews. Dysprosia 02:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes sense for software, where you can easily have an "inferior" version. However for text, audio and video quality is subjective and derivative works should be credited back to Wikinews in at least the first generation. -- IlyaHaykinson 12:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd disagree (consider a derivative work with severely skewed POV for example, which uses the name of Wikinews to promote it). But anyway, I didn't exactly want to create debate, but to elucidate any confusion. Dysprosia 07:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Not defined clearly, not thorough enough. --Mrmiscellanious 13:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC) (en.wikinews)[reply]
  4. Oppose. The rationale for adopting a Wikinews-specific license is not convincing. Specifically, the following issues are problematic:
      • The license appears to contain no clauses for internationalization or updates of the license text, unlike recent version of Creative Commons. This is especially problematic as, as currently written, the license is already in conflict with some local laws: disclaimers of liability are limited by locally applicable law, for example. It also contains no severability clause which would ensure that the entire license remains valid in case individual clauses are found not to be.
      • The license appears to contain very few definitions. The Creative Commons licenses are very clear on what the terms used therein mean, reducing the risk of ambiguity in court decisions.
      • The Creative Commons effort is very carefully adapting its licenses to international jurisdictions. Keep in mind that the licensor is operating under the jurisdiction of their home country. The CC concept is that you have many different international versions ("iCommons licenses"), and you can freely switch between them to adapt to local variances of law. While, from the above, it appears to be the intention of those promoting a WNL to ensure international usability, as demonstrated, no sufficient forethought seems to have been put into these matters.
      • Writing a legally safe license is hard and requires intense study and knowledge of the peculiarities of different jurisdictions. I find it unlikely that, without legal advice, we will be able to develop a secure license that fits our needs within a reasonable timeframe. I see no good reasons to duplicate the effort made by the Creative Commons groups around the world to develop legally sane and simple licenses, specifically now that CC-BY supports a designated entity clause. I strongly suggest that those who want to develop a Wikinews license should at least support dual-licensing content under CC-BY.--Eloquence 19:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Severance clause are automatic in contracts. It's mainly written as a matter of information. I agree with you that it would be better to include it, and I will add it to the final disclaimer. It's very simple to do : people will be better informed and judges will more easily understand it. --soufron 22:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • At least in German law, there's nothing automatic about it; see e.g. §139 BGB of the civil code. It depends on the intentions of the parties to the agreement. However, for the specific situation we're talking about, I agree that the severability clause is not strictly necessary, but mostly a matter of convenience. While you're at it, please also add upgradability as an element to the license.--Eloquence 23:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        This option was not initially added to this poll. Please feel free to add it if you think it should be included. - Amgine 21:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Brent Dax (Brent Dax 16:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)) — I cannot in good faith support continued license fragmentation.[reply]
  6. It's too much complicated for us to build a license. --DaB. 13:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Schaengel89 @me 18:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kaldari 15:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC). Too restrictive to justify license fragmentation.[reply]
  9. --24.222.222.160 19:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Others:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-


Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-


  1. Anthony DiPierro 11:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC) Wikinews maintains it, so modifications may be implemented swiftly[reply]
  2. Almafeta 19:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deego 15:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC) -- Does not protect derivatives.[reply]


Combined GFDL and CC-BY 2.5

[edit]

Wikinewsies:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Brent Dax 17:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC) — Only because the other Wikimedia projects use the GFDL. In hindsight, I wish they hadn't.[reply]
  2. Habakuk 13:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC) n:de:benutzer:habakuk[reply]
  3. Derbeth 10:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (pl)[reply]
  4. Nichalp 05:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Schaengel89 @me 18:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PiaCarrot 22:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC) -- I think Wikinews should be licences at least under CC-BY, and multi-licence under CC-BY and GFDL may help link Wikipedia and Wikinews. ja.wn[reply]
  7. --Taichi - (^_^) 06:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kaldari 15:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 00:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (n:fr:Utilisateur:Hégésippe Cormier)[reply]

Others:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Deego 15:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC) -- Protects derivatives.[reply]

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

Combined GFDL and CC-BY-SA 2.5

[edit]

Wikinewsies:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Schaengel89 @me 18:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Taichi - (^_^) 06:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 00:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (n:fr:Utilisateur:Hégésippe Cormier)[reply]

Others:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Deego 15:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC) -- Protects derivatives.[reply]

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

Combined GFDL and WNL

[edit]

Wikinewsies:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Cspurrier 12:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC) en Not sure this is needed since, it looks like WNL would be one way compatible with GFDL anyways. --Cspurrier 12:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Taichi - (^_^) 06:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

Others:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Deego 15:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC) -- Does not protect derivatives.[reply]

Combined GFDL and CC-BY 2.5 and WNL

[edit]

Wikinewsies:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 00:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (n:fr:Utilisateur:Hégésippe Cormier)[reply]

Others:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Deego 15:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC) -- Does not protect derivatives.[reply]


Combined GFDL and CC-BY-SA 2.5 and WNL

[edit]

Wikinewsies:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 00:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC) (n:fr:Utilisateur:Hégésippe Cormier)[reply]
  2. Kaldari 15:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Others:

[edit]

Za

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

Protiv

[edit]

Glasajte klikom ovde: +/-

  1. Deego 15:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC) -- Does not protect derivatives.[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews/Licensure_Poll/Hr&oldid=316300"