Mailing List Archive

2008/10/19 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
> 2008/10/19 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:

>> If there is still a case to be made that adopting CC-BY-SA puts you in
>> a substantially worse position than adopting GFDL if your aim is to
>> protect your work with strong copyleft, I'd be really interested in a
>> thorough argument to that effect.

> The FSF tend to be ideologically driven but at least predictably so.
> CC tend to be more pragmatic which makes them less predicable. We have
> no reason to think that CC would opt for strong copyleft for images
> unless they have made a clear direct commitment to do so. They have
> not.


The CC have the advantage of being present and active on our mailing lists.


> The FSF on the other hand is more predicable if more troublesome in some areas.


Yes, if you ever ask them about their licenses they answer "Reply
hazy, try again later, ask your attorney." Saying "our attorney is
Mike Godwin and your license makes his head hurt" doesn't seem to
affect this.


- d.

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

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Mike.lifeguard
<mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm>wrote:

> If I recall correctly, we're talking about people who have licensed
> their contributions under GDFL version something.something /or later/ -
> the "or later" bit is what lets us do this kind of thing without the
> insanity of tracking down each and every person and getting their
> permission.
>
> -Mike
>
>
Oh please... let's not open up *that* can of worms again, like in the last
discussion. ;-)

--
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

2008/10/18 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
> The FSF tend to be ideologically driven but at least predictably so.
> CC tend to be more pragmatic which makes them less predicable. We have
> no reason to think that CC would opt for strong copyleft for images
> unless they have made a clear direct commitment to do so. They have
> not.

This argument implies that the GFDL is any more a strong copyleft
license than CC-BY-SA is. I see no reason to assume that is the case.

Yes, we need to work towards a good solution for strong copyleft on
embedded media. CC appears to me to be more logically positioned to
help us solve this problem, because it fits much more neatly in their
mission focus (helping creators of media of all types) than in the
FSF's (supporting free software), and because their license release
cycles tend to be significantly shorter than the FSF's.

Of course you can argue that the CC approach in _general_ has a bias
against freedom and a bias in favor of restrictions. I think that's a
completely legitimate argument, and I would love to see CC become more
proactive in supporting freedom. Their explicit designation of CC-BY
and CC-BY-SA as Free Cultural Works licenses (with a link to the
definition) is an important step in that direction, and I do know from
my personal interactions with CC that there are people in the
organization that would like CC to be more actively promoting the free
licenses over the non-free ones.

Becoming more closely involved with CC is a great way for us to become
an important voice for freedom. For example, I think we can
successfully promote a view that non-free licenses are inappropriate
for collaborative communities.

But irrespective of that, CC has no incentive _not_ to help us solve
the strong copyleft problem: even when viewed as a purely pragmatic
organization, it fits completely within their mission scope to solve
problems like this one. Whether that solution should consist of
modifying CC-BY-SA itself is, in my opinion, legitimately debatable,
though as I said, it seems to be the simplest solution and reduces
license proliferation, which CC is explicitly opposed to at this
point.

What I do not agree with is the notion that GFDL somehow represents an
actual solution to the problem. That understates the massive problems
associated with reuse of GFDL licensed electronic documents and
compatibility with CC-BY-SA resources, it quietly ignores the inherent
contradiction in a strong copyleft interpretation of the GFDL, and it
overstates the significance of weakly varying interpretations of
essentially equivalent legal texts.

--
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, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:33 AM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/10/19 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
>> 2008/10/19 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
>>> If there is still a case to be made that adopting CC-BY-SA puts you in
>>> a substantially worse position than adopting GFDL if your aim is to
>>> protect your work with strong copyleft, I'd be really interested in a
>>> thorough argument to that effect.
>
>> The FSF tend to be ideologically driven but at least predictably so.
>> CC tend to be more pragmatic which makes them less predicable. We have
>> no reason to think that CC would opt for strong copyleft for images
>> unless they have made a clear direct commitment to do so. They have
>> not.
>
> The CC have the advantage of being present and active on our mailing lists.

Hi there. Erik and I (and others) have been discussing strong (or
stronger, eg use in any libre context as opposed to only in a context
with the same license) for some months. I owe some emails on this
right now...

IMO (non-lawyer) CC licenses aren't crystal clear on this now (look at
the examples enumerated in definitions of adaptations and
collections), and it just makes sense to clarify this in the direction
of stronger copyleft for images. It has taken me some years of
listening to arguments about this on various CC and WMF lists to come
to this conclusion, but in the end, it's pretty simple given typical
[re]use of photos -- if you don't want stronger copyleft, use CC BY or
CC BY-SA and make an exception for contextual use.

The above isn't a clear direct commitment to write strong copyleft for
images into CC BY-SA, sorry, but I hope it is a pretty clear
indicator. Assuming we do this, it will take some time to get to a new
version 3.x or 4.0 that explicitly includes strong copyleft for
images. In addition to getting to getting that just right, we have to
consider whether it impacts definitions in other CC licenses, and
probably much else (see IANAL above). And the last thing I'd want from
a trustworthy license steward is rapid change.

Mike
(For context I'm roughly Erik's peer at CC and have been the main
person working on getting more recognition of libre licenses and their
importance such as the BY-SA statement of intent previously mentioned
in this thread and the free cultural works branding now on libre CC
licenses.)

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

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>>
>>> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If
>>>> WMF does not choose to re-license content on Wikimedia's sites to
>>>> CC-BY-SA, there are limitations in place in the current re-licensing
>>>> language to prevent others from doing so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am sorry, I know I am certainly the last person who
>>> would have a right to grumble...
>>>
>>> But seriously, I am simply failing to parse that sentence;
>>> and somehow I suspect there is something significant
>>> behind it. Could someone forego the flip responses, and
>>> rephrase it in a fashion that would clarify the thinking
>>> behind that sentence?
>>>
>>>
>> It means that the potential relicensing will be carefully circumscribed.
>> It won't simply allow anyone to relicense GFDL content under CC-BY-SA
>> anytime they want.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
>>
>>

Thank you. This phrasing has the considerable virtue
of saying something isn't positively "allowed" rather than
claiming there are limitations which "prevent". And I can
easily understand that relicensing would not happen
"simply". That is quite defensible. Of course it would
be complex.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



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

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Creative Commons is not at all opposed to such a solution. My
> preferred "fix" at this point is a CC-BY-SA 3.1 version which
> explicitly invokes copyleft for scenarios of semantic embedding, but
> where copyleft is taken to mean "combine with a work under any license
> that's compliant with the Definition of Free Cultural Works", as
> opposed to "the exact same license".
>
> > the GFDL 1.2 only images
> > People who uploaded images under the GFDL because it's clumsiness
> > makes conventional commercial use tricky.
>
> I don't see how this relates to the re-licensing language in GFDL 1.3.
> Whether or not we want to continue using "GFDL 1.2 only" content is a
> separate decision. Partially, this seems to be a debate for the
> Commons community about whether GFDL 1.2 only is "free enough", given
> the encumbrances you mention.


That's a scary comment, especially considering the comment above about
CC-BY-SA 3.1 and the knowledge that you "initiated" the "Definition of Free
Cultural Works".

Which leads me to another question. Who controls this definition?
http://freedomdefined.org/History gives a bit of the history, but I couldn't
find anything about the current situation.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:
> Which leads me to another question. Who controls this definition?
> http://freedomdefined.org/History gives a bit of the history, but I couldn't
> find anything about the current situation.

It's based on community consensus. See
http://freedomdefined.org/Authoring_process

Angela

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

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:
> > Which leads me to another question. Who controls this definition?
> > http://freedomdefined.org/History gives a bit of the history, but I
> couldn't
> > find anything about the current situation.
>
> It's based on community consensus. See
> http://freedomdefined.org/Authoring_process
>

Right, but who controls what it's based on? Who owns the website? Who owns
the trademark?

I guess I see the answer to the first question:
http://freedomdefined.org/Moderators

Whew. For a minute there I thought CC-BY-SA 3.1 might be considering the
world's first "copyright license that anyone can edit". What a disastrous
idea that would be.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

That you request a possible mgration does not solve the real issue, you
can't relicense content you do not own. I tried to get a clear answare
in the past if such a relicensing is considered a single sided
renegotiation of a contract, and given the described scenario, ie
relicensing of the Wikimedia projects, very few in Noraway are willing
to bet on the legalty of the project. The only one I've found are
someone deeply involved in Creative Commons, and one other person that
guessed it might be legal if the contributors was given the opportunity
to opt out. Note that if one contributor opts out then all later
revisions has to be purged.

Note also that in Norway the law explicitly states that the authors are
to be given credit, and this isn't something they can release any
publisher from doing. One person I've asked said it like this; you can
use a non-by attribution license but still the publisher has to give you
credit.

Right now we tell the newspapers to give credit to "Wikipedia" but this
is in fact a little bit fishy, but it is the best we can do given the
present code - we can't tell them exactly who wrote the content. Note
also that the problem isn't really much easier when we have to deal with
"main authors" and "minor authors".

My guess is that such a relicensing isn't legal in Norway.

John

Erik Moeller skrev:
> 2008/10/18 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>:
>> Why debate the license terms here and now?
>
> Because CC has tried to address some of the concerns and objections,
> it would be good to know what you perceive as the key remaining
> issues. I've found CC generally to be very responsive and open to the
> needs of the Wikimedia community.
>
> While the release of the FDL 1.3 is an important step in a process,
> it's not the end of that process. Please see the original resolution
> by the Board last year on the licensing change:
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/wiki/Resolution:License_update
>
> "It is hereby resolved that:
>
> * The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be
> modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass
> collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license;
> * Upon the announcement of that relicensing, the Foundation will
> initiate a process of community discussion and voting before making a
> final decision on relicensing."
>
> This continues to be the plan. We do believe we've found a potential
> compromise with regard to future use of the FDL, which is part of what
> the FSF and WMF have been working on recently.
>
> Erik

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

I hope no one seeriously consider using that site for defining what
writers on Wikipedia means about free cultural works. If so, then
someone should think through very carefully how the comunity operates
and how it will react on something like this.

John

Anthony skrev:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:
>>> Which leads me to another question. Who controls this definition?
>>> http://freedomdefined.org/History gives a bit of the history, but I
>> couldn't
>>> find anything about the current situation.
>> It's based on community consensus. See
>> http://freedomdefined.org/Authoring_process
>>
>
> Right, but who controls what it's based on? Who owns the website? Who owns
> the trademark?
>
> I guess I see the answer to the first question:
> http://freedomdefined.org/Moderators
>
> Whew. For a minute there I thought CC-BY-SA 3.1 might be considering the
> world's first "copyright license that anyone can edit". What a disastrous
> idea that would be.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

It is really only useful for evaluating if a particular license qualifies as free content. In all other aspects of evaluating free content it is too vague to be useful in practice. I don't think there will be any notable disagreements in the community over the conclusions in the former cases. And in the latter cases, it is so open to interpretation that their are no real conclusions.

Birgitte SB


--- On Sun, 10/19/08, John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no> wrote:

> From: John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The license situation
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sunday, October 19, 2008, 12:28 PM
> I hope no one seeriously consider using that site for
> defining what
> writers on Wikipedia means about free cultural works. If
> so, then
> someone should think through very carefully how the
> comunity operates
> and how it will react on something like this.
>
> John
>
> Anthony skrev:
> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Angela
> <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Anthony
> <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:
> >>> Which leads me to another question. Who
> controls this definition?
> >>> http://freedomdefined.org/History gives a bit
> of the history, but I
> >> couldn't
> >>> find anything about the current situation.
> >> It's based on community consensus. See
> >> http://freedomdefined.org/Authoring_process
> >>
> >
> > Right, but who controls what it's based on? Who
> owns the website? Who owns
> > the trademark?
> >
> > I guess I see the answer to the first question:
> > http://freedomdefined.org/Moderators
> >
> > Whew. For a minute there I thought CC-BY-SA 3.1 might
> be considering the
> > world's first "copyright license that anyone
> can edit". What a disastrous
> > idea that would be.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 12:42 PM, John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no> wrote:

> Right now we tell the newspapers to give credit to "Wikipedia" but this
> is in fact a little bit fishy, but it is the best we can do given the
> present code - we can't tell them exactly who wrote the content. Note
> also that the problem isn't really much easier when we have to deal with
> "main authors" and "minor authors".
>
>
We do not tell them to credit "Wikipedia". "Wikipedia" does not create
content, it hosts it. We tell people to credit "Wikipedia contributors" and
add a link to the article, which also gives a link to the history page with
all the authors named explicitly.

--
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

2008/10/19 John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no>:

> I hope no one seeriously consider using that site for defining what
> writers on Wikipedia means about free cultural works. If so, then
> someone should think through very carefully how the comunity operates
> and how it will react on something like this.


I think you're about eighteen months late in saying so:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy

Of course, some of "the community" have ideas on what licenses mean
that are frankly on crack. We've had people make admin on en:wp
without understanding that GFDL works they create can be used outside
Wikimedia.


- d.

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

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:19 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/10/19 John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no>:
>
>> I hope no one seeriously consider using that site for defining what
>> writers on Wikipedia means about free cultural works. If so, then
>> someone should think through very carefully how the comunity operates
>> and how it will react on something like this.
>
>
> I think you're about eighteen months late in saying so:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
>
We are de facto ignoring certain parts of the licensing policy in its
strict sense of reading. But nobody cares any way, so it doesn't
really matter.

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

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Bryan Tong Minh
<bryan.tongminh@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:19 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2008/10/19 John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no>:
> >
> >> I hope no one seeriously consider using that site for defining what
> >> writers on Wikipedia means about free cultural works. If so, then
> >> someone should think through very carefully how the comunity operates
> >> and how it will react on something like this.
> >
> >
> > I think you're about eighteen months late in saying so:
> >
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
> >
> We are de facto ignoring certain parts of the licensing policy in its
> strict sense of reading. But nobody cares any way, so it doesn't
> really matter.
>

Is that sarcasm, or do you really think it doesn't matter that licensing
policy isn't being followed?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 12:42 PM, John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no> wrote:

> That you request a possible mgration does not solve the real issue, you
> can't relicense content you do not own. I tried to get a clear answare
> in the past if such a relicensing is considered a single sided
> renegotiation of a contract, and given the described scenario, ie
> relicensing of the Wikimedia projects, very few in Noraway are willing
> to bet on the legalty of the project. The only one I've found are
> someone deeply involved in Creative Commons, and one other person that
> guessed it might be legal if the contributors was given the opportunity
> to opt out.


The whole concept is rather sketchy, but the powers that be seem to want to
give it a try anyway. I'm not sure I blame them, since GFDL 1.2 isn't being
followed anyway. Under the draft text one possibility would have been to
not relicense the content but to require new contributors to dual-license
their contributions, and let third parties use the content under CC at their
own risk. Not sure if that strategy would be possible under the new 1.3 or
not.


> Note that if one contributor opts out then all later
> revisions has to be purged.
>

That's certainly not true under US copyright law, though many people think
it is. One of them will probably reply to this post telling me I'm wrong,
at which point I'm going to ignore them. So don't consider my silence as
acquiescence.

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

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Angela wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Which leads me to another question. Who controls this definition?
>>> http://freedomdefined.org/History gives a bit of the history, but I couldn't
>>> find anything about the current situation.
>>>
>>
>> It's based on community consensus. See
>> http://freedomdefined.org/Authoring_process
>>
>> Angela
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>

Sorry, Angela, but community consensus is one incredibly
silly way to describe your little coteries bit of will formation.

I am sorry, but the only appropriate response here is
out loud laughter. Please do not promote any freedomdefined
text on this mailing list as a "community" effort. That really
makes scotsmen blush. (And yes, that goes double for Erik too.)


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen





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

2008/10/18 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
> 2008/10/18 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
>> I highly doubt the FSF is going to give the WMF exclusive rights to
>> relicense GFDL content (the draft version used the text "you may relicense
>> the Work", not "the WMF may relicense the work", or even "the original
>> publisher of the work, even if they deny that they are a publisher, may
>> relicense the work"),
>
> Please don't make assumptions based on drafts from two years ago. If
> WMF does not choose to re-license content on Wikimedia's sites to
> CC-BY-SA, there are limitations in place in the current re-licensing
> language to prevent others from doing so.

Does the section deal with the difference between content originate on
wikipedia and GFDL content original hosted elsewhere?

--
geni

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

Hoi,
I would be seriously disappointed if the language of this deal explicitly
name Wikipedia. A proper text that allows for the migration of licenses of
content should be open for any project and any organisation under the same
rules. Given the size of the WMF and the urgency of the matter, I am really
happy for the WMF to take a leadership role in this.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:51 AM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/10/18 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
> > 2008/10/18 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> >> I highly doubt the FSF is going to give the WMF exclusive rights to
> >> relicense GFDL content (the draft version used the text "you may
> relicense
> >> the Work", not "the WMF may relicense the work", or even "the original
> >> publisher of the work, even if they deny that they are a publisher, may
> >> relicense the work"),
> >
> > Please don't make assumptions based on drafts from two years ago. If
> > WMF does not choose to re-license content on Wikimedia's sites to
> > CC-BY-SA, there are limitations in place in the current re-licensing
> > language to prevent others from doing so.
>
> Does the section deal with the difference between content originate on
> wikipedia and GFDL content original hosted elsewhere?
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

2008/10/19 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
> Does the section deal with the difference between content originate on
> wikipedia and GFDL content original hosted elsewhere?

It generally speaks of content previously published elsewhere; it
doesn't make specific reference to Wikipedia or Wikimedia anywhere.
--
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

David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/10/19 John at Darkstar <vacuum@jeb.no>:
>
>
>> I hope no one seeriously consider using that site for defining what
>> writers on Wikipedia means about free cultural works. If so, then
>> someone should think through very carefully how the comunity operates
>> and how it will react on something like this.
>>
>
>
> I think you're about eighteen months late in saying so:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
>
> Of course, some of "the community" have ideas on what licenses mean
> that are frankly on crack. We've had people make admin on en:wp
> without understanding that GFDL works they create can be used outside
> Wikimedia.
>

To be fair, it's hard to find a succinct, non-legalese explanation. =]

The closest I could find to a plainly phrased description of Wikipedia's
licensing status linked from the front page is from
Wikipedia:Copyrights, to wit: "Wikipedia content can be copied,
modified, and redistributed /so long as/ the new version grants the same
freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article
used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy
the attribution requirement)."

But this sentence is the 3rd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the
article. There's a status-of-this-page box at the top, a billion
disambiguation hatnotes, a full disclaimer paragraph with bolded intro,
then the nondescript/nondelineated beginning of the actual page, and
even then an analogy of our still-to-be-discussed copyright status to
free software's copyright status, and a mention that this is related to
the as-yet-undefined term "copyleft". Then after all that you get to the
quoted sentence above which actually says something about our copyrights. =]

-Mark


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