CZ:License Essays/Andrew Su

A few observations in support of choosing a license which permits commercial use.

Commerical efforts may add value

If a third-party has put enough work into enhancing or repackaging CZ content such that they are able to convince users to go to their site instead of CZ, well then presumably they’ve added a lot of value. If they've added value, why shouldn't they be able to profit from their efforts?

Moreover, if CZ is able to take advantage of those efforts, even better. For example, if they add value through additional data, then cc-by-sa allows CZ to re-incorporate their additions back into CZ (right?). Or, if they add value through formatting the data (better search functions, better interface, etc.), then CZ can also use these as inspiration for improving the main CZ instance. In both cases, it’s a win-win.

Commercial efforts which don't add value aren't valuable

If a third-party does not significantly add value, then nobody will go their site. For example even though they’ve taken WP content, who goes to answers.com? If people don't go there, then presumably nobody's making any money (or not enough for us to get worked up about). And most importantly, these offshoots do not harm the integrity or the popularity/importance of the main CZ instance.

Don't give people reasons not to contribute

A non-commercial license may even discourage participation. Many (most?) of us have "day jobs" at commercial organizations in the areas in which we are experts. If we are prohibited from using that content on behalf of our employer, then it sends the message that contributing to CZ is not compatible with work activities. For example, suppose I’m employed by a rock climbing company, and suppose I am writing lots of content to put on my company website. I might be writing about the history of climbing, techniques used, important people, etc. Seems like great content for CZ, but if I see the noncommercial restriction, then I pretty much have to publish only on my website and not on CZ. Replace “rock climbing” with “biotechnology”, “high tech”, “human resources”, “law firm”, etc. and that equals lots of lost contributors and content.

My recommendation

My recommendation – any license which permits commercial use. Not versed enough in the specifics to comment on the GFDL versus cc-by-sa.