Mailing List Archive

On 4/15/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

If we don't have the FDL 1.3 by April 30, we'll definitely try to find
a better solution ASAP.
--
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 15/04/2008, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 4/15/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
> If we don't have the FDL 1.3 by April 30, we'll definitely try to find
> a better solution ASAP.

The only way you could manage that is by not publishing a draft
version which is somewhat risky.


--
geni

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

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 4/15/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> If we don't have the FDL 1.3 by April 30, we'll definitely try to find
> a better solution ASAP.

I don't really see the point in a moratorium on new wikis. Any project
started after now is going to be the least of any problems we might
have.

Since they haven't been started until now, they're probably not going
to have the momentum to be tremendous by the time any new license is
released. Additionally, the founding community and major contributors
will largely still be around at the time any big sticking points come
up.

I don't think whatever problems might be abated by waiting justify
delaying approval of these projects, and as the one who insisted upon
the public consultation period before anyone decides on anything, I
really don't want to see a situation arise that would artificially
pressure it to be shorter because there are dozens of frustrated
communities waiting on it.

-Kat

--
Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en
Wikimedia, Press: kat@wikimedia.org * Personal: kat@mindspillage.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net * email for phone

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

On Tuesday 15 April 2008 15:27:00 Simetrical 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."

I find this very strange and unnecessary. Unnecessary, because if the GNU Wiki
License is a version of the GFDL, all works created under GFDL 1.2 or later
could be licensed by it anyway.

Also, it doesn't give attention to works created principally by a single
person who later released them under GFDL 1.2 or later, and such works are
plentiful on Wikipedia.

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

Simetrical 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."
>
I have no knowledge of whether this is in fact going to be part of the
license, but I do know that something like it has been requested on some
other lists, so it's quite possible. The worry among some not-Wikipedia
GFDL users is that any sort of open-ended "you can migrate licenses via
a wiki" clause would encourage creative abuse, with stuff that was
really intended by its authors to be and stay GFDL ending up getting
migrated against their wishes. Putting a time limit on the migration
(especially one that's already past) limits the amount of creative
license migration anyone can do.

-Mark


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

Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 4/15/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
> If we don't have the FDL 1.3 by April 30, we'll definitely try to find
> a better solution ASAP.
>
April 30 is certainly reasonable, and within the more sensible part of
the wide-open range that I mentioned before. Nevertheless letting new
wikis be affected presumptively by an as yet undisclosed licence
generates a lot of unnecessary heat. In the foreseeable future this
handful of projects would remain tiny beside the huge bulk of other WMF
projects whose conversion to a new licence would be a massive
undertaking. Making the migration for a few additional tiny projects
would be of no great consequence.

There are clearly imperfections in our application of 1.2, but it is the
rule until formally replaced. At some future date 1.3 will become the
rule, but until that date it is more orderly to proceed on the basis
that 1.2 is fully applicable.

Ec

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

> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On 4/15/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> > If we don't have the FDL 1.3 by April 30, we'll
> definitely try to find
> > a better solution ASAP.

Thank you Erik.

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

Simetrical 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."
>
> 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.

I think it makes no sense at all. Anyone who thinks it's easier to change
the world than to change the transition date in a secret draft license
needs their head examined.

I can only assume group dynamics is to blame. I can easily imagine myself
agreeing to such a nonsensical course of action in order to end a long
argument with an incredibly stubborn person.

So, assuming that's the case, I give my sympathy to those involved, and
wish them best of luck.

-- Tim Starling


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

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I think it makes no sense at all. Anyone who thinks it's easier to change
> the world than to change the transition date in a secret draft license
> needs their head examined.

Thus it makes no sense for anyone to insist on that course of action
to begin with. But if, for some ridiculous reason, that were
nonnegotiable or not worth negotiating, it would make perfect sense to
stop creating wikis temporarily rather than having to deal with the
headache of migrating their license manually. Which is why I objected
to the tone of the criticisms of Erik et al. -- there was a
presumption of unreasonableness *on the part of Wikimedia* that wasn't
warranted without further info (even if my particular theory happens
to be incorrect).

But I don't think you disagree with any of that.

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

Erik Moeller ÐÉÛÅÔ:

>> 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.
>
> If we don't have the FDL 1.3 by April 30, we'll definitely try to find
> a better solution ASAP.

Today is April 30, please find an another solution. The best solution is
to create approved Wikipedias in a normal way, I think.

--
[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

I was planning to send a similar mail tomorrow, but since Mikhail did it
anyway today, I can only express my support.

Cheers
Yaroslav


> Erik Moeller ÐÉÛÅÔ:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> If we don't have the FDL 1.3 by April 30, we'll definitely try to find
>> a better solution ASAP.
>
> Today is April 30, please find an another solution. The best solution is
> to create approved Wikipedias in a normal way, I think.
>
> --
> [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