3) In other words, if you don't know what you're doing, and there's a possibility that changing the license could create long-term, unsolvable problems, then for the love of Christ don't do it.

Yeah we're all rushing a little here. Nothing was submitted under the new license (even if someone put an SCP up, we hadn't yet finished drafting the announcement post, which AFAIK would have been a requirement for it to go into effect?) so we should be in the clear regarding that. We… should just really not be moving so fast until we get someone with at minimum lawyer-level understanding looking at this. I know we feel our hand is being forced by offsite stuff but we can't afford to fuck everything up anymore than it's already fucked up. :)

It really did seem like the absolute best idea, SIGH. Thank you to the members who contacted us about this, BTW.

This seems like the absolute best course of action to take now, and I applaud that it's been done. But yeah, we the site need a lawyer. This is so frakking muddled. :P

it'd be good to make sure that gets confirmed though.

But here's a key thing I think we're missing.

Every single solitary article on this site is a derivative work of SCP-173.

Therefore, if SCP-173 is under one of these licenses, so is everything else derived from it.

It all comes down to that.

If Rhett is right, we must re-release everything under the new license. Everything. If Rhett is wrong, we cannot change the license on anything, including future derivative works.

I do not see any possible middle ground that would allow us to just put new works under the new license, because these new works will be building off the old stuff, and therefore, carry on its license.

Am I wrong?

we can stop offering items under the old license and re-release under a new license.

once that has happened, the only people who can continue using the old works are those who had already published them while providing proper attribution to the original author and stating that their work was released under that CC license, PRIOR to us having changed our license.

if they have done so then yes, they can continue using them without our permission.

if not, then they are in violation of CC and CC no longer covers them.

that means that people could not take articles now and claim them under the old CC, even if they were published under the old CC, because that license is no longer in effect. they would have had to done so with proper attribution and license prior to us having changed the license.

FOR CLARITY'S SAKE:

7. Termination

b.
Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.

In this case, the License applies to the person who is creating the derivative work. the licensor has the right to change licenses, but IF the licensee has already created their derivative work and already attributed it properly, then their license to use the work continues in perpetuity.

The license does NOT restrict the owner of the original work from changing how they are offering their work, but instead gives permission to others to BEGIN using the license FOR THE TIME THAT THE LICENSE IS IN EFFECT. After the license is changed, anyone who used the license may continue doing so, but any new creations will have to fall under whatever the new license is.

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

What if I change my mind?

CC licenses are not revocable. Once a work is published under a CC license, licensees may continue using the work according to the license terms for the duration of copyright protection. Notwithstanding, CC licenses do not prohibit licensors from ceasing distribution of their works at any time. Additionally, CC licenses provide a mechanism for licensors and authors to ask that others using their work remove the credit to them that is otherwise required by the license. You should think carefully before choosing a Creative Commons license.

Oh boy.

Are we understanding this correctly?

a) You can choose your own license on Wikidot. There's a huge dropdown in the site manager, the one we're using just happens to be the default one, and no one ever selected anything different.

b) According to the Creative Commons FAQ, you cannot revoke a license once given. It is perpetually stuck with it, hence why we are referring to the old work as "tainted".

*edit* oh wait, right, that was wikidot's license, not the one of our own choosing. still! this one is perfect.

This also outlines why we need Terms of Service, so that we can specify things such things as that when you post material to the site, you are granting the right to derive, but only for the purposes of other material for the site or some such legal nonsense.

God dammit. How did I miss that too.

Yeah, fuck that. A license change is good, but we can't do shit without derivative works.

Supporting a license change, but revoking support for this particular license.

Including the part where, if do-able, I will support a drive for all the old material to change over to the new license, where possible. (Some stuff is permanently tainted, like 173, as we don't know who the original author was for sure, but everything else… yeah.)

EDIT: Fuck, I somehow missed the non-derivative part.

No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

How would we actually manage to work with that? UNLESS we have people basically all agree, via posting, that they waive that part of CC for this specific site and its sister sites. Otherwise this is basically death to how we write on this wiki, and I wouldn't support that.

EDITx2: http://creativecommons.org/choose/ in case anyone is curious.

Mann, I believe this is what you'd be looking for: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

And here is what we have RIGHT NOW: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

EDITx3: Trawling the internet, here is a potentially interesting link: http://individuated.org/archives/www.zzzbot.com/thecages/2008/03/13/anonymous-group-4chan-copyright-and-intent/
Relevant because we came from 4chan.

Though now that I think about it more, the term "SCP" and "Foundation" and various other things did come about BEFORE the move to this site and the adoption of CC. So a significant portion might actually not fall under CC, but instead not be covered by any license at all due to not having been originally created and submitted under CC(unless they had some other license on the site before wikidot).

Anyway yes…lawyers are a good thing to have. I should have listened to my mother and become one.

Yes, all of the meta-information regarding the Foundation is under the older license. Yes, technically all new content derived from the meta would have to share the license.

However.

The author always has the ability to waive any or all requirements of the license. We can pretty much assume that the authors of the meta-information (the staff and old guard) will waive the requirement that the newest derivative works (new submissions) need to share the license, instead requiring that they use the new non-derivative license.

Someone with more legal experience than I, pleeeease correct me if I'm wrong.

a question though. if all new material was covered under this, but all old material under the prior CC, then no old material could be covered under this license as i understand it. but what qualifies under old material? references to things like the SCP foundation as a whole, the various groups of interest, maybe even the format of the articles all might potentially fall under the jurisdiction of the original CC.

IF that is the case, then wouldnt any further use of them HAVE to be maintained under the old CC? if i am incorrect please tell me, because i'd like to be in this instance. that'd be an enormous pain. this isnt an objection, i'd vote yes on changing either way, but to give us an idea going into it of things we might have to deal with.