Then again, "an open content license yet to be determined" is not delimited by any of that.
This why, to urge yet again, that people make no decisions about any of these matters. We just don't know.
I'm very sorry to hear you say that. And thanks, Aleta, but I think I can handle this one.
Because of the continued failure of Citizendium to adopt a license, I have decided to reassess my work on this project. As of now, I am suspending further work of mine on CZ at least until the formal adoption of a license for the project.
Regarding the words "an open content license yet to be determined": if you think that is enforceable, you are sadly mistaken. And before you repeat your earlier words about how "nobody on this forum is qualified", you should apply them first of all to yourself.
Let me explain something about contracts, and if you choose, you can ignore whatever I have to say. That's your business. A contract, to be enforceable, needs to have at least some degree of specificity or clarity. The parties (and others, for that matter) need to know what it means. In your post you say, and I quote: "We just don't know."
The "license yet to be determined" is a partial agreement, a contract to make a contract, with some essential matters left to be determined. It is possible for parties to make an agreement to adopt a license in a "standard form" and this may become enforceable as soon as such is adopted by the patentee (or it may require a further overt assent). But you are apparently not contemplating "delimiting" yourself to a "standard form", but have instead opened up the possiblity of incorporating a copyright transfer as part of the license. That is well beyond your charge.
Textual content already contributed by myself to CZ is made available under either GFDL or cc-by-sa. I HEREBY RENOUNCE, ABJURE, AND DISAVOW ANY OTHER AGREEMENT OR ALLEGED AGREEMENT REGARDING THAT MATERIAL AND, SPECIFICALLY, ANY AGREEMENT TO MAKE AN AGREEMENT. Any license for my textual content beyond GFDL or cc-by-sa would require further positive, overt assent from myself.
###############
So where do things stand? Do the words "license yet to be determined" mean that in your opinion contributors are bound by whatever contract CZ decides to write? Does that apply to their past contributions? Or just those made after the adoption of said license? Do you think a "contract" of the nature of "I agree in advance to whatever contract you write" is enforceable?
What do the words "an open content license yet to be determined" mean? To you? To the contributors? Does it refer to a license from those of that description commonly available ("standard license") at the time. Or could it mean one which did not and, as of this writing, does not yet exist? In the event of differences in interpretation, whose interpretation wins? In such a case, is there really a "meeting of the minds" as is generally required of contract?
You can write a contract (license) which involves copyright transfer if you want. I suppose contributions made subsequently to the formal adoption of such a license might in fact be valid copyright transfers, though I'm not sure. One thing, I will not contribute one word to a project which asserts a copyright transfer. And any attempt to apply such a radical claim rertroactively to prior contributions is not likely to be well received by me at least.
Then there is the problem of the "unread contract". We've all signed "contracts" which are printed in voluminous detail on the back of sales slips when we purchase a $12 thumb drive or something similar. If everybody insisted on reading and negotiating such "contracts", commerce would grind to a halt. Courts routinely void them. Informed assent cannot be given unless the contract is read. Contracts are also negotiated. Was negotiation possible? In the case of the proposed CZ license, not only has it not been read, it is not even theoretically possible to read it, for it does not yet even exist. And do you still think that could be enforced?
Some years back, Microsoft was in the process of launching a web site featuring discussion forums (somewhat similar to Yahoo's Groups). Somebody read the TOS and discovered that MS was asserting that material posted to the forums would belong (copyright) to MS. They quickly backtracked, explaining that the posted TOS was just a draft and retracted it. Will Larry Sanger now come onto this thread and renounce any intention to claim a copyright transfer?
##############
When Citizendium was first announced, people such as myself were willing to work on the basis of trust until certain details (such as the license) were worked out. We did this because we believed in the project. We understood the massive nature of the undertaking and that, if this trust were not granted, it might never have a chance. I feel my trust has been betrayed by the refusal to renounce copyright transfer as a license component.
