Mailing List Archive

oddly I've found this message in my Spam label from Gmail and not at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-April/thread.html

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 2:15 PM, A.M.D.F. <amdf00@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello.
>
> Brion Vibber, the Foundation's Chief Technical Officer said that
> "Currently, no new wikis will be created until GFDL 1.3 is released.".
>
> Hungarian Wikinews, Erzya and Extremaduran and Gan Wikipedia, and
> Japanese Wikiversity are approved projects currently waiting creation.
>
> These projects had waited for a month, before Brion said about a
> moratorium. It is unknown, when GFDL 1.3 will be released, few weeks or
> maybe few months?
>
> I think that license changing is completely unrelated to the process of
> creating new wiki projects.
>
> Why new wikis will not be created? Many people are waiting.
>
> Links:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages (see "approved")
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13264 (Opened: 2008-03-06)
>
> --
> [FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE][2:5020/845.86@fidonet]
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I found it in my spam label too :-) but it was only sent 2 hours ago,
so maybe it will take a little bit to show up in the archives?

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com> wrote:
> oddly I've found this message in my Spam label from Gmail and not at
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-April/thread.html
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 2:15 PM, A.M.D.F. <amdf00@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello.
> >
> > Brion Vibber, the Foundation's Chief Technical Officer said that
> > "Currently, no new wikis will be created until GFDL 1.3 is released.".
> >
> > Hungarian Wikinews, Erzya and Extremaduran and Gan Wikipedia, and
> > Japanese Wikiversity are approved projects currently waiting creation.
> >
> > These projects had waited for a month, before Brion said about a
> > moratorium. It is unknown, when GFDL 1.3 will be released, few weeks or
> > maybe few months?
> >
> > I think that license changing is completely unrelated to the process of
> > creating new wiki projects.
> >
> > Why new wikis will not be created? Many people are waiting.
> >
> > Links:
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages (see "approved")
> > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13264 (Opened: 2008-03-06)
> >
> > --
> > [FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE][2:5020/845.86@fidonet]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:15:46 +0400
> From: "A.M.D.F." <amdf00@gmail.com>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] New wiki creation moratorium
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <48023FC2.4050909@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed
>
> Hello.
>
> Brion Vibber, the Foundation's Chief Technical Officer said that
> "Currently, no new wikis will be created until GFDL 1.3 is released.".
>
> Hungarian Wikinews, Erzya and Extremaduran and Gan Wikipedia, and
> Japanese Wikiversity are approved projects currently waiting creation.
>
> These projects had waited for a month, before Brion said about a
> moratorium. It is unknown, when GFDL 1.3 will be released, few weeks or
> maybe few months?
>
> I think that license changing is completely unrelated to the process of
> creating new wiki projects.
>
> Why new wikis will not be created? Many people are waiting.
>
> Links:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages (see "approved")
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13264 (Opened: 2008-03-06)
>
>
These are good questions. In my opinion it would seem very unfair for
these projects to be affected by such a 'rule', if one exists. I am not
sure why licenses would be an issue. As for wikinews, I thought the
content was CC-by? What would that have to do with the GFDL? I cannot
speak for the Wikipedias as they do use GFDL.

Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 4/13/08, Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hungarian Wikinews, Erzya and Extremaduran and Gan Wikipedia, and
> > Japanese Wikiversity are approved projects currently waiting creation.
> >
> > These projects had waited for a month, before Brion said about a
> > moratorium. It is unknown, when GFDL 1.3 will be released, few weeks or
> > maybe few months?

The drafts we've seen of the FDL 1.3, which we have to treat as
confidential at this time, require this unusual step. The release of
the new license is expected shortly - if things get delayed
significantly further, we'll find an alternative solution. I apologize
for the inconvenience to the new project communities waiting for wikis
to be created.

Since Wikinews is under CC-BY, there's indeed no reason to put new
Wikinewses on hold, so Hungarian Wikinews can go ahead.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> The drafts we've seen of the FDL 1.3, which we have to treat as
> confidential at this time, require this unusual step.

"require" seems unlikely. What difference is there between a project
created today and one created a year ago from a legal standpoint? Do
you mean to say it's more convenient to wait?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Yay! More Wikinews sites!

I sincerely hope some of the people over on the Hungarian version are up to
translating their work over to English. Rico Shen does this from Chinese and
if we had one person like that on each language, half the English
contributors could quit and we'd still have a dozen or more stories a day.


Brian McNeil

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller
Sent: 14 April 2008 00:48
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Cc: Brion Vibber
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] New wiki creation moratorium

On 4/13/08, Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hungarian Wikinews, Erzya and Extremaduran and Gan Wikipedia, and
> > Japanese Wikiversity are approved projects currently waiting creation.
> >
> > These projects had waited for a month, before Brion said about a
> > moratorium. It is unknown, when GFDL 1.3 will be released, few weeks or
> > maybe few months?

The drafts we've seen of the FDL 1.3, which we have to treat as
confidential at this time, require this unusual step. The release of
the new license is expected shortly - if things get delayed
significantly further, we'll find an alternative solution. I apologize
for the inconvenience to the new project communities waiting for wikis
to be created.

Since Wikinews is under CC-BY, there's indeed no reason to put new
Wikinewses on hold, so Hungarian Wikinews can go ahead.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 4/13/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> "require" seems unlikely. What difference is there between a project
> created today and one created a year ago from a legal standpoint? Do
> you mean to say it's more convenient to wait?

Due to the confidential nature of the current draft release, I can't
comment further at this point.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 2008.04.13 23:52:43 +0100, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> scribbled 0.3K characters:
> > The drafts we've seen of the FDL 1.3, which we have to treat as
> > confidential at this time, require this unusual step.
>
> "require" seems unlikely. What difference is there between a project
> created today and one created a year ago from a legal standpoint? Do
> you mean to say it's more convenient to wait?

At the very least, it'd be easier to wait and start a new project as all-FDL1.3 licensed project, rather than starting, getting a fair bit of material, and then needing to go back and relicense it all.

--
gwern
Consulting GSM RPC evil AFSPC media USCG XS4ALL GQ360 QRR

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 4/13/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "require" seems unlikely. What difference is there between a project
> > created today and one created a year ago from a legal standpoint? Do
> > you mean to say it's more convenient to wait?
>
> Due to the confidential nature of the current draft release, I can't
> comment further at this point.

I have a sudden, burning desire to rewrite the GFDL into LOLcat, for
"FDL v.1.35!!!!111" [1]

OH HAI, ceiling cat sez, free contentz, u can haz it! derivuhtive
workz ok, if keepz teh licenez! Iz viral lolz!!111 Bewaer of teh
copyrightz, u no can claim! KTHXBAI.

-- phoebe, who needs to cut back on the coffee

[1]http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=How_to_speak_lolcat

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0@gmail.com> wrote:
> At the very least, it'd be easier to wait and start a new project as all-FDL1.3 licensed project, rather than starting, getting a fair bit of
> material, and then needing to go back and relicense it all.

Hmm, that would be a good point in theory, but before a project is
created, they must *already* be an active test project on the
Incubator, so that content would already be 1.2-licensed and you would
still have to relicense it all. (See comment 20 on the bug: "Looking
forward to visit gan.wikipedia.org as soon as possible. because the
test site of gan wikipedia holding over 1000 articles!")

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Yes, and seeing this, I can't imagine what valid reason there could be
then for preventing their creation.

But then, I haven't seen FDL 1.3... and guess what, it's confidential!
This is starting to feel like the government here... everything is
secret. Whatever happened to transparency?

Mark

On 13/04/2008, Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0@gmail.com> wrote:
> > At the very least, it'd be easier to wait and start a new project as all-FDL1.3 licensed project, rather than starting, getting a fair bit of
> > material, and then needing to go back and relicense it all.
>
>
> Hmm, that would be a good point in theory, but before a project is
> created, they must *already* be an active test project on the
> Incubator, so that content would already be 1.2-licensed and you would
> still have to relicense it all. (See comment 20 on the bug: "Looking
> forward to visit gan.wikipedia.org as soon as possible. because the
> test site of gan wikipedia holding over 1000 articles!")
>
>
> --
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> ---
> Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
> this address will probably get lost.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The thing is that these projects already have lots of contents under GFDL
1.2 in the Incubator. So even if you wait to create their wikis until GFDL
1.3 is released, the content will still have to be relicensed. So waiting
for it really makes no sense.

2008/4/14, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
>
> On 4/13/08, Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hungarian Wikinews, Erzya and Extremaduran and Gan Wikipedia, and
> > > Japanese Wikiversity are approved projects currently waiting
> creation.
> > >
> > > These projects had waited for a month, before Brion said about a
> > > moratorium. It is unknown, when GFDL 1.3 will be released, few weeks
> or
> > > maybe few months?
>
>
> The drafts we've seen of the FDL 1.3, which we have to treat as
> confidential at this time, require this unusual step. The release of
> the new license is expected shortly - if things get delayed
> significantly further, we'll find an alternative solution. I apologize
> for the inconvenience to the new project communities waiting for wikis
> to be created.
>
> Since Wikinews is under CC-BY, there's indeed no reason to put new
> Wikinewses on hold, so Hungarian Wikinews can go ahead.
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Jon Harald Søby
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 4/13/08, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
> But then, I haven't seen FDL 1.3... and guess what, it's confidential!
> This is starting to feel like the government here... everything is
> secret. Whatever happened to transparency?

We can impose transparency on ourselves, but respecting the
confidentiality requirements of others is just that: respect. When
faced with the draft GFDL 1.3 text, we had two options:

- We could either dual-license all new wikis under CC-BY-SA to avoid
problems later, without providing much of an explanation;
- We could postpone wiki-creation until the new license is released.

We chose the latter option, because we'd much rather discuss any
substantial changes to wiki licensing openly, with the full text of
the license visible to the community. So, this decision was in fact
made in the interest of a transparent process.

(And yes, we did take the current Incubator situation into account
when reviewing the text of the license.)
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Okay, but this doesn't explain the idea behind not creating them.

Content would still need to be relicensed. Are you folks under the
idea that not having their own real Wiki will inhibit creation of more
content that will need to be relicensed? Why not just lock all Wikis
until then?

Mark

On 14/04/2008, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 4/13/08, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But then, I haven't seen FDL 1.3... and guess what, it's confidential!
> > This is starting to feel like the government here... everything is
> > secret. Whatever happened to transparency?
>
>
> We can impose transparency on ourselves, but respecting the
> confidentiality requirements of others is just that: respect. When
> faced with the draft GFDL 1.3 text, we had two options:
>
> - We could either dual-license all new wikis under CC-BY-SA to avoid
> problems later, without providing much of an explanation;
> - We could postpone wiki-creation until the new license is released.
>
> We chose the latter option, because we'd much rather discuss any
> substantial changes to wiki licensing openly, with the full text of
> the license visible to the community. So, this decision was in fact
> made in the interest of a transparent process.
>
> (And yes, we did take the current Incubator situation into account
> when reviewing the text of the license.)
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
Why not just take all Wikimedia Foundation projects off line ? Really let us
have a sense of proportion. It is bad enough for the new projects not being
created.
Thanks,
Gerard

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:

> Okay, but this doesn't explain the idea behind not creating them.
>
> Content would still need to be relicensed. Are you folks under the
> idea that not having their own real Wiki will inhibit creation of more
> content that will need to be relicensed? Why not just lock all Wikis
> until then?
>
> Mark
>
> On 14/04/2008, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > On 4/13/08, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > But then, I haven't seen FDL 1.3... and guess what, it's
> confidential!
> > > This is starting to feel like the government here... everything is
> > > secret. Whatever happened to transparency?
> >
> >
> > We can impose transparency on ourselves, but respecting the
> > confidentiality requirements of others is just that: respect. When
> > faced with the draft GFDL 1.3 text, we had two options:
> >
> > - We could either dual-license all new wikis under CC-BY-SA to avoid
> > problems later, without providing much of an explanation;
> > - We could postpone wiki-creation until the new license is released.
> >
> > We chose the latter option, because we'd much rather discuss any
> > substantial changes to wiki licensing openly, with the full text of
> > the license visible to the community. So, this decision was in fact
> > made in the interest of a transparent process.
> >
> > (And yes, we did take the current Incubator situation into account
> > when reviewing the text of the license.)
> >
> > --
> > Erik Möller
> > Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 4/13/08, Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But then, I haven't seen FDL 1.3... and guess what, it's confidential!
>> This is starting to feel like the government here... everything is
>> secret. Whatever happened to transparency?
>>
> We can impose transparency on ourselves, but respecting the
> confidentiality requirements of others is just that: respect. When
> faced with the draft GFDL 1.3 text, we had two options:
>
> - We could either dual-license all new wikis under CC-BY-SA to avoid
> problems later, without providing much of an explanation;
> - We could postpone wiki-creation until the new license is released.
>
> We chose the latter option, because we'd much rather discuss any
> substantial changes to wiki licensing openly, with the full text of
> the license visible to the community. So, this decision was in fact
> made in the interest of a transparent process.
>
> (And yes, we did take the current Incubator situation into account
> when reviewing the text of the license.)
>
Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest.

It is perfectly understandable that your participation in the licence
revision committee would have confidentiality implications. A person
who was not associated with that committee, however, would not be able
to block certain activities presumptively on the basis that they may
conflict with an undisclosed set of rules. That person, without a
conflict of interest, would continue to act under the old rules.

You conveniently neglect the third alternative: to continue starting new
projects under GFDL 1.2. We have no way of knowing whether the new
agreement will be released within the next week, or whether the parties
are so deadlocked as to put that agreement on a plane with vapourware.

Your position is not helped by spin-doctoring the notion of
transparency. If you are really intent on a a transparent and open
process, then that must allow for the possibility that the new licence
or parts of it will not be acceptable to the community. It must not be
presented as a fait accompli.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 4/14/08, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> You conveniently neglect the third alternative: to continue starting new
> projects under GFDL 1.2. We have no way of knowing whether the new
> agreement will be released within the next week, or whether the parties
> are so deadlocked as to put that agreement on a plane with vapourware.

There's no negotiation deadlock; they're just trying to fix some
potential bugs with the new license before it's released. As I said,
if for some reason things get stuck, we'll figure out another
solution. Nobody is trying to pull a fast one here; quite the
opposite: We're trying to protect the interests of the small wikis by
doing this, as will become apparent when the license is released.

> If you are really intent on a a transparent and open
> process, then that must allow for the possibility that the new licence
> or parts of it will not be acceptable to the community.

The parameters of any migration to FDL 1.3 and, by extension, CC-BY-SA
have already been defined by the Board:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update

So, yes, there will be a community consultation process before any
decision is made upon release of FDL 1.3. That being said: Due to the
way the license works, any re-user will be able to treat content we
currently host as being licensed under FDL 1.3.

--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On 4/14/08, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> > If you are really intent on a a transparent and
> open
> > process, then that must allow for the possibility
> that the new licence
> > or parts of it will not be acceptable to the
> community.
>
> The parameters of any migration to FDL 1.3 and, by
> extension, CC-BY-SA
> have already been defined by the Board:
>
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update
>
> So, yes, there will be a community consultation
> process before any
> decision is made upon release of FDL 1.3. That being
> said: Due to the
> way the license works, any re-user will be able to
> treat content we
> currently host as being licensed under FDL 1.3.
>

To be blunt in what I think other's are getting at
here:

The only effect of such a moratorium, that I can
imagine, is increased pressure put on the community
consultation process to end sooner rater than later.

Maybe my imagination is a bit weak today but that is
all I can come up; ignoring bad faith options.

Birgitte SB


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 4/14/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The only effect of such a moratorium, that I can
> imagine, is increased pressure put on the community
> consultation process to end sooner rater than later.

The two are completely unrelated.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> "require" seems unlikely. What difference is there between a project
> created today and one created a year ago from a legal standpoint? Do
> you mean to say it's more convenient to wait?

I vaguely recall something I'd heard in the past, either from a draft
of the FDL 1.3 or a rumor or something. There was to be a new clause
that went something like this:

"If the covered work was created principally by public collaboration
on a website editable by anyone, which was created before the date
June 25, 2005 [pulling that date out of nowhere], the licensee may
choose to use the work under the terms of the GNU Wiki License instead
of this license."

The provision was, obviously, meant more or less to target Wikipedia
and offshoots of it, with the understanding that at the time they had
no better options but that now they should move to a better license.
But on the other hand, the date was presumably added because the idea
would be new wikis should skip the GFDL altogether and move to the
wiki license: this was meant to be a transition clause only.

I'm not on any committees and have no special standing or knowledge
and have not signed any nondisclosure agreements, so the above may be
nonsense. But if the issue is something along those lines, it would
make a considerable amount of sense as a reason not to start any new
wikis for a few months if necessary, if there was reluctance from the
other participants to move up the date too much. It's not really a
big price to pay.

It's unfortunate that the FSF (or whoever is responsible) is
apparently being secretive about this. But given that Wikimedia does
not rule the world, it's inevitable that it will on occasion have to
agree to things that ideally they wouldn't like to. A totally
uncompromising position on things like transparency is not the most
productive to adopt for the goals of Wikimedia. Assume good faith,
and in the case of officers of Wikimedia, it would be nice to assume
competence as well -- until proven otherwise, of course. If the facts
can't be shared now, wait until they can be before you judge.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com> wrote:
\
> I'm not on any committees and have no special
> standing or knowledge
> and have not signed any nondisclosure agreements, so
> the above may be
> nonsense. But if the issue is something along those
> lines, it would
> make a considerable amount of sense as a reason not
> to start any new
> wikis for a few months if necessary, if there was
> reluctance from the
> other participants to move up the date too much.
> It's not really a
> big price to pay.

But they are already started. The material exists and
is already licensed and is continually built upon even
now. Not having the official url doesn't really mean
anything in regards to the licensing of the existing
material or the ability to create new material under
the current license being phased out. The url is only
important as a milestone to the communities involved
and creating greater exposure for the project. But it
doesn't mean the the project doesn't already exist
under the current version of GFDL or that new material
can not be licensed under that version in these
languages. If that was the intention of the
moratorium, the reality of the situation fails to
achieve that. Of course, just because it fails
doesn't mean WMF wasn't required to do this. Maybe no
one thought it through very well. Or it could also
have been a concession offered by WMF to show
commiment to the processs that the other parties did
not realize was so undermined by the existance of
Incubator. (i.e. "Look we are so commited to this
process we pledge in writing not create any new wikis
with the current version") Such an agreement may have
gained some corresponding concession for WMF that was
quite valuable.

Anyway I think is it clear that a public clarification
is not going to be forthcoming. I think the best
approach here is imagine WMF gained something
wonderful by this agreement and focus any discussion
with frustrated parties on the fact that they can
still create content in Incubator. Emphasize that
this delay in granting the formality of the url is not
a reflection on their work nor does prevent them from
doing anything substantial with their project.

The main, really helpful thing WMF could do would be
to give deadline on this. (i.e. The moratorium will
not last longer than X months reagardless of the
status of negotiations.) Even if it is a really long
date, like 12 months. People have much more
confidence in these things when they are not
open-ended.

Birgitte SB


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 15/04/2008, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "require" seems unlikely. What difference is there between a project
> > created today and one created a year ago from a legal standpoint? Do
> > you mean to say it's more convenient to wait?
>
>
> I vaguely recall something I'd heard in the past, either from a draft
> of the FDL 1.3 or a rumor or something. There was to be a new clause
> that went something like this:
>
> "If the covered work was created principally by public collaboration
> on a website editable by anyone, which was created before the date
> June 25, 2005 [pulling that date out of nowhere], the licensee may
> choose to use the work under the terms of the GNU Wiki License instead
> of this license."

If that's the case, common sense would dictate you set the date to be
the date you publish the license, not some arbitrary date potentially
months before users even have a chance to consider switching.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 15/04/2008, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 4/14/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The only effect of such a moratorium, that I can
> > imagine, is increased pressure put on the community
> > consultation process to end sooner rater than later.
>
>
> The two are completely unrelated.

That's complete nonsense. If the new wikis can't start until the
public consultation is over (if you're going to start them before that
consultation, you'll have to do so under the old license, which you
could do now), that is a pressure to rush the consultation. We may not
to privy to all the information, but we aren't stupid. Please don't
treat us as if we are and talk nonsense.

I'm willing to wait and see what the new license, but you had better
have a damn good reason for this, or you are going to have some
seriously pissed off Wikimedians on your hands.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 4/15/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the new wikis can't start until the
> public consultation is over (if you're going to start them before that
> consultation, you'll have to do so under the old license, which you
> could do now), that is a pressure to rush the consultation.

No, the two are completely separate, as I said. The decision to switch
to, for example, CC-BY-SA (if that's what FDL 1.3 allows us to do) has
nothing to do with the decision not to launch new wikis right now due
to the way the license is phrased. Once we have the text of the final
license before us, we'll have a discussion about the best way to
create new wikis. And that could be, in fact, to license them under
the FDL-only, though I doubt it. But the point of the moratorium is to
make that open discussion possible, rather than to silently implement
some decision in the "best interests" of the small wiki communities.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l