My rant is about the licence for free sites. It is ok to have free licence for design, modules, source, themes and everything that Wikidot gives us by giving us a free site. Besides, it is one of the conditions of the free license Wikidot software has, if I am not mistaken. Everything derivative from Wikidot software, should be under the same licence as Wikidot software (Pieter explained this somewhere, but I cannot find it now). But what about the content one puts in the site? The content can be some original texts, or photos. Maybe a book. Recently, Pieter made a Wikidot Book template site. What if someone writes a book using Wikidot Book template site? Does this mean that his writings are free to copy, distribute and adapt, and that the author does not have any copyrights over his own work? I think that then Book template is useless, since no writer will use it under these conditions. At least he should be given a possibility to decide what license he would like to use for his work, just as Wikidot decided to use Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported Licence for their software.
I think that there should be two licenses: one for the source (design, modules, whatever you call it), and the other for the content. The source license should be as it is now, Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. But a site administrator should have the possibility to chose the license for the contents he is about to put in the new site. I explained my suggestion in detail here:
And I would really appreciate to hear (read) other opinions.
Don't just be sorry, DO something. - the animals