Blooncyclopedia talk:Copyrights

Why is this wiki under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 License? It supports copyright hassles and is incompatible with much free material.

I want to know why this wiki is under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License. That license is flawed due to the controversially vague distinction between commercial and noncommercial (like what Definition of Free Cultural Works has argued and because it is falsely believed to be a copyleft one, when it is actually proprietary.

By restricting commercial use, you are giving people paranoia about what they may use their work for, and technically commercial use could be more than paywalls and simply selling something. What about ads or linking to one's Patron or Ko-fi or relying on donations. Do you actually want to restrict that?

You also acknowledge that work on this wiki is incompatible with CC BY-SA stuff like Wikipedia and Bloons Wiki, but what if people want to fork material from Bloons Wiki to help Blooncyclopedia and to make it grow, as long as they attribute (link to license, indicate changes, no falsely suggested endorsement from author et cetera) the wiki and all? Are you, or are you not concerned about having plagiarised from Bloons Wiki whenever you just happen to also write about Bloons?

What do I suggest? The best option could be to reboot this wiki and pick a free license instead, even if it is sad because this wiki is still growing and has potential to be better than Bloons Wiki. CC BY-SA 4.0 is recommended by me because the 4.0 versions of the licenses are better, and because CC BY-SA 4.0, unlike CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, fits the Definition of Culturally Free Works. You might not like this, but to make this wiki free, selling it must be allowed. Libre is more important than gratis.

P.S. The CAPTCHA is hard to see due to the background color being so close to the text color. CarlFilip19 (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ensuring that every edit that copies content from the fandom wiki is properly disclosed and attributed sounds like a nightmare. Most of the material on the fandom wiki is really poorly structured and written anyway, so I don't see how we're losing out on much by blanket banning that content from being copied over entirely. Using CC-BY-NC-SA hasn't stopped sites like Bulbapedia or the Minecraft Wiki from running ads, and I don't really see any other situations where using a non-commercial licence restricts what we can do.

Telling me I should start the whole project over from scratch just because you don't like the license is wild. Relicensing isn't impossible. If I wanted to relicense material on Blooncyclopedia for whatever reason, then I could get the consent from the site's contributors to have their material released under a different license. This could be done with a discussion on the wiki where authors explicitly agree to have their material relicensed. We would have to undo/revert material from anyone who didn't give consent, but that's still much better than deleting everything and starting over. po●la●vux 15:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I see. This proposed idea does sound cooler. Creative Commons licenses cannot be revoked, but there is the option of putting multiple licenses on work, and future modifications can be put under different licenses if legally possible. I wonder if it will be easier to relicense the wiki early on so that fewer editors will have to be sought for permission to have their contributions relicensed. CarlFilip19 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)