Question: How should yunity license non-code creations? (e.g. pictures, videos, articles, etc...)

Needs, Wants, Values

Doug W: I feel a bit anxious when thinking about licenses due to contrasting thoughts about 'means' and 'ends'. I want to license in a way that promotes the greatest uptake of yunity in the electronic, physical and mental worlds.

Manuele C.: In one way I like the creative common licence that allow people to use the material as long as they recognize the paternity.
In this case it would increase the project popularity, not just by advertising the name, but also sharing a link that would benefit a lot our indexing in search engine (Google in particular)
On the other hand I would anyway put some restriction, I don't want my face to be on some print or webpage of other things I don't know about.

Janina A: I need a licence that helps yunity spread its vision and mission, i want a licence as soon as possible to further structure things, i value a licence that fits yunity's core values

Botho: I'm still pondering what kind of license helps to spread the message best. But yunity should definitely go for a CC-licence.

Tilmann B: I need a license that enables us to use other peoples content. I want that other people can use our content as easy as possible. I value clarity, open communication and ease of access.

Philip: I resonate with Tilmann. I want any content to be as easily accessible for everyone who wants to use it as possible (without restrictions for commercial use). From my point of view I don't need anything protected. Everything that is created is a common good :)

(Unknown) When we use licensing i want it to ensure that the content stays open (SA). I dont care about people having their right to use content commercially.
Veronica - Creative Commons (CC) license: NC (Non-Commercial) BY (name the source and the author of the video when you share) SA (Share Alike = the same way)

Proposals

yunity > License SysCon, 2016-05-24 > LicenseSyscon201605214.png

If for whatever reason using CC0 is unduly complicated for the wiki, then use the most permissive CC license available.

Tilmann notes; "If we want to use content from other sources, we should investigate their licenses:
Wikipedia: CC-BY-SA-3.0
OpenStreetMap Tiles:
CC-BY-SA-2.0
OpenStreetMap Data: ODbL (kind of a BY-SA license: http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright)
http://nomadwiki.org, http://hitchwiki.org: CC-BY-SA
http://ouishare.net: CC-BY-SA
http://fallingfruit.org: CC-BY-NC-SA"

Resistance 15%

http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Waive as many rights as legally possible. Use for everything we own the all the rights to. Examples are: Images, videos, text, ...

This suggestion doesn't offer a solution for content that contains elements we don't own the rights to, or isn't public domain. This may include the wiki, website, videos (which use elements not owned by us), ...

Resistance 19%

The SysCon cycle restarts on the same question and participants express NWVs, form proposals then vote again.

Resistance 32%

All our creations are published without license meaning we retain full copyright. One exception are our YouTube videos which are licensed under CC BY: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468

Resistance 81%

Further Information

Link to SysCon: https://business.konsensieren.eu/en/konsensierung/g9jdbw1ky/ergebnis
/wiki/spaces/ARCHIVE/pages/32047128
/wiki/spaces/~dmhwebb/pages/32047219 (Article by Douglas Webb)
Non-code license for deriving other peoples work (Article by Tilmann)
Discussion channel: non-code license