Forgot your password?

Comment: Creative Commons Licenses (Score 2) 56

by chato (#37648180) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Which License For School Products?
If you think big money can be made for the school and the creators by selling copies of this work (which is often NOT the case), then my recommendation would be to have the school be the copyright owner (it will be by default given that its employees are doing a work-for-hire), that the school enters with the employees a contract for sharing the royalties (meaning that e.g. if the school sells the rights for printing a book, it will give a certain fraction of the royalties to the author), and that the school releases the work under a Creative Commons Non-Commercial (CC-BY-NC) license.

If, on the contrary, you believe no one will make much money by selling this work, then you can have the author release the work under a Creative Commons (CC-BY) license indicating that the attribution should be given to both the creator and the school. This will allow wide dissemination of the work, will allow others to build upon it, will prevent others from making profit at your expense (someone can print and sell copies, but anyone else can do it, so if copies are sold that would be at near-cost prices), and will make sure the employee and the school get due credit.

Comment: The proposal (Score 2, Informative) 317

by chato (#18289484) Attached to: Wikipedia May Require Proof of Credentials
Wikipedia:Credentials outlines the proposal. It comes from an idea suggested by Jimbo in 2005 and again in 2007, after the Essjay controversy. The proposal is that "Wikipedia develops a system for verifying editors' credentials, so as to encourage greater accountability for users who claim expertise in certain fields".

"Your attitude determines your attitude." -- Zig Ziglar, self-improvement doofus