Following a link from Peter Suber’s ever-valuable [Open Access News](http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html) I read Larry Sanger’s blog entry [We aren’t Wikipedia (Citizendium blog, March 21, 2007)](http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/21/we-arent-wikipedia/) which lists the various ways in which Citizendium differs from Wikipedia. This made interesting reading but my eye was especially caught by these two items:
> 8. To be confirmed: Our license disallows unauthorized commercial use. We are using the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial (CC-by-nc) license for our original articles. We use the GFDL for all articles based on Wikipedia articles.
> 9. Contributors share their copyright with us. Contributors give to the Citizendium Foundation a nonexclusive right to relicense their work. This allows the Citizendium Foundation to be the sole entity that licenses the entire Citizendium corpus.
If this is so (and the ‘to be confirmed’ caveat holds out some hope that this is not yet permanent decision) this means that Citizendium is **not [open](http://okd.okfn.org/)** (in addition to the non-commerical restriction the second item appears to imply that in reality third parties will have very limited rights of reuse).
This would be a massive change compared to Wikipedia and would in my opinion be a very major error because (as I have written extensively in previous posts):
* There are good reasons not to use non-commercial licenses (see items [listed on writings](http://blog.okfn.org/writings/)
* [Wikipedia’s (explicit) openness was a significant factor in its continuing success](http://blog.okfn.org/2006/08/08/dead-knowledge-why-being-explicit-about-openness-matters/)
Citizendium is a really interesting project and I really hope, both for the project’s sake and that of the wider community, that it does choose to be fully [open](http://okd.okfn.org/).