The CC-by-nc-sa license is an Open Content license from Creative Commons. It permits non-commercial re-use of any content it applies to. The less restrictive CC-by-sa permits commercial use and is similar to GFDL.

Terms of Use require that all compilations of edits made via Living Platform are instantly released as CC-by-nc-sa for any non-commercial purpose. This lets other political party web services quote and even heavily criticize them and permits green nonprofits? to use them in any advocacy, all without asking any permission of the GPC or any editor. It is hoped that this intranet best practice will be copied by governments and all other nonprofit entities - see eating our own dog food? and Science and Technology policies re: monopolies on information, which Greens prefer to limit.

One mild issue is whether the GFDL corpus namespace that is imported effectively by the list of policy terms and those of the list of process terms that are generally known, must be explicitly identified as an exception to the CC-by-nc-sa - that is, while articles are under CC some names may be GFDL and extensions to the namespace may be imported into GFDL. CC-by-sa is so similar to GFDL and the licensing at Wikipedia so confused that this would not be an issue, but it may be wise to simply release the right to enforce the "nc" clause against namespace extensions that are reflected back into the GFDL corpus, to remove a potential obstable to an editor simply copying a Living Platform article whole into Wikipedia - a practice that really must be encouraged, see press protocol and google rank? and media strategy?.

See CC-by-nc-sa 2.0 overview.