Mailing List Archive

2008/11/3 Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com>:
> I'm finishing a "licenses on Wikipedia" speech I'm going to have
> tomorrow. I want to check something in the GFDL text. I get 404… and
> after a while, refresh shows "GNU Free Documentation License, Version
> 1.3, 3 November 2008"… :-)
>
> Going to check the changes… and possibly rewrite some parts of my
> presentation :-/

What URL is that for? The license statements on the English Wikipedia
all say v1.2 as far as I can see (I just checked).
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2008/11/3 Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com>:
> I'm finishing a "licenses on Wikipedia" speech I'm going to have
> tomorrow. I want to check something in the GFDL text. I get 404… and
> after a while, refresh shows "GNU Free Documentation License, Version
> 1.3, 3 November 2008"… :-)
>
> Going to check the changes… and possibly rewrite some parts of my
> presentation :-/
>
> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]



"Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site") means any
World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also
provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A
public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A
"Massive Multiauthor Collaboration" (or "MMC") contained in the site
means any set of copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site.

This could be a problem with anything that isn't text such as images
videos and sounds.


--
geni

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

2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:
> 2008/11/3 Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com>:
>> I'm finishing a "licenses on Wikipedia" speech I'm going to have
>> tomorrow. I want to check something in the GFDL text. I get 404… and
>> after a while, refresh shows "GNU Free Documentation License, Version
>> 1.3, 3 November 2008"… :-)
>>
>> Going to check the changes… and possibly rewrite some parts of my
>> presentation :-/
>
> What URL is that for? The license statements on the English Wikipedia
> all say v1.2 as far as I can see (I just checked).


http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html


--
geni

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

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:03 AM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/11/3 Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com>:
>> I'm finishing a "licenses on Wikipedia" speech I'm going to have
>> tomorrow. I want to check something in the GFDL text. I get 404… and
>> after a while, refresh shows "GNU Free Documentation License, Version
>> 1.3, 3 November 2008"… :-)
>>
>> Going to check the changes… and possibly rewrite some parts of my
>> presentation :-/
>>
>> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
>
>
>
> "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site") means any
> World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also
> provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A
> public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A
> "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration" (or "MMC") contained in the site
> means any set of copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site.
>
> This could be a problem with anything that isn't text such as images
> videos and sounds.

I dont see why. It doesnt mention text specifically. images, videos,
sounds, sheet music, whatever ... are all copyrightable works. What
is the problem you are seeing?

--
John Vandenberg

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

In the FAQ there is a short explanation of the changes:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html
Bence Damokos

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:03 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:
> > 2008/11/3 Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com>:
> >> I'm finishing a "licenses on Wikipedia" speech I'm going to have
> >> tomorrow. I want to check something in the GFDL text. I get 404… and
> >> after a while, refresh shows "GNU Free Documentation License, Version
> >> 1.3, 3 November 2008"… :-)
> >>
> >> Going to check the changes… and possibly rewrite some parts of my
> >> presentation :-/
> >
> > What URL is that for? The license statements on the English Wikipedia
> > all say v1.2 as far as I can see (I just checked).
>
>
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
>
>
> --
> 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

2008/11/3 John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:03 AM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2008/11/3 Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com>:
>>> I'm finishing a "licenses on Wikipedia" speech I'm going to have
>>> tomorrow. I want to check something in the GFDL text. I get 404… and
>>> after a while, refresh shows "GNU Free Documentation License, Version
>>> 1.3, 3 November 2008"… :-)
>>>
>>> Going to check the changes… and possibly rewrite some parts of my
>>> presentation :-/
>>>
>>> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
>>
>>
>>
>> "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site") means any
>> World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also
>> provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A
>> public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A
>> "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration" (or "MMC") contained in the site
>> means any set of copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site.
>>
>> This could be a problem with anything that isn't text such as images
>> videos and sounds.
>
> I dont see why. It doesnt mention text specifically. images, videos,
> sounds, sheet music, whatever ... are all copyrightable works. What
> is the problem you are seeing?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>

We don't offer prominent facilities to edit anything other than text.

--
geni

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

> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

Cheers.

Well, that's a completely useless license. Congratulations to the WMF
for wasting a whole load of time. How are we meant to use it when the
deadline was 2 days ago? Anything added to our projects since then
would need to be deleted in order to transfer to CC, which includes
any content added during the discussion about whether we want to
switch which will take some time.

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

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Bence Damokos <bdamokos@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the FAQ there is a short explanation of the changes:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html

*

The work must have been added to a public wiki (or some other
kind of web site where the general public could review and edit the
materials) before November 1, 2008.

All FDL-covered material added to Wikipedia before November 1, 2008
satisfies these conditions.$

--
What...extraordinary timing. Only 3 days worth of work lost...

Michael

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

Referring to:

"An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License,
and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere
other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into
the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus
incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."

I get the feeling that your reading of this section is not completely
accurate. "First published somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently
incorporated..." What specific types of content do you suppose that applies
to?

Nathan

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>wrote:

> > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
>
> Cheers.
>
> Well, that's a completely useless license. Congratulations to the WMF
> for wasting a whole load of time. How are we meant to use it when the
> deadline was 2 days ago? Anything added to our projects since then
> would need to be deleted in order to transfer to CC, which includes
> any content added during the discussion about whether we want to
> switch which will take some time.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:

> Referring to:
>
> "An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License,
> and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere
> other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into
> the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus
> incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."
>
> I get the feeling that your reading of this section is not completely
> accurate. "First published somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently
> incorporated..." What specific types of content do you suppose that
> applies
> to?


IANAL, but this would mean text added after a permission to use has been
received (e.g. in OTRS). I am ambivalent whether this deadline means that
OTRS should stop accepting text, as that would be incorporated after the
deadline and thus its licence unconvertible.

Bence Damokos

>
>
> Nathan
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> > Well, that's a completely useless license. Congratulations to the WMF
> > for wasting a whole load of time. How are we meant to use it when the
> > deadline was 2 days ago? Anything added to our projects since then
> > would need to be deleted in order to transfer to CC, which includes
> > any content added during the discussion about whether we want to
> > switch which will take some time.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

I see that the FAQ has a different take on the matter than is suggested by
its actual text, or at least the actual license text is more clear than the
FAQ. The FAQ suggests having a passed deadline is designed to prevent the
wholesale addition of text released under FDL in order to relicense it
CC-BY-SA. That would work fine with the text as its written, and would seem
only to require the deletion of FDL content originally published elsewhere
that is added to Wikipedia after Nov 1. I think the volume of "published
elsewhere" content added to Wikipedia is relatively small these days, isn't
it?

Nathan

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:

> Referring to:
>
> "An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License,
> and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere
> other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into
> the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus
> incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."
>
> I get the feeling that your reading of this section is not completely
> accurate. "First published somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently
> incorporated..." What specific types of content do you suppose that applies
> to?
>
> Nathan
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>> Well, that's a completely useless license. Congratulations to the WMF
>> for wasting a whole load of time. How are we meant to use it when the
>> deadline was 2 days ago? Anything added to our projects since then
>> would need to be deleted in order to transfer to CC, which includes
>> any content added during the discussion about whether we want to
>> switch which will take some time.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

2008/11/3 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com>:
> Referring to:
>
> "An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License,
> and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere
> other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into
> the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus
> incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."
>
> I get the feeling that your reading of this section is not completely
> accurate.

That's correct. Changes originating in the wiki to be relicensed can
still be relicensed past November 1, in fact until the 2009 deadline
for relicensing. I haven't checked the FAQ (we didn't receive an
advance copy of it), but it is possible that it doesn't correctly
reflect this point.

More later,
Erik
--
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

2008/11/3 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:

>> I dont see why. It doesnt mention text specifically. images, videos,
>> sounds, sheet music, whatever ... are all copyrightable works. What
>> is the problem you are seeing?
>
> We don't offer prominent facilities to edit anything other than text.

Oh, I get it. You're saying that we're only a MMC for the textual
components, and that for everything else we just do conventional
hosting of discrete works?

I'm not sure this is actually a problem - it seems like quite a
restrictive reading of the license - but I can see why you're
flagging it. Something to study this evening...

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

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

CC Compatible Licenses:http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses

2008/11/4 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>

> > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
>
> Cheers.
>
> Well, that's a completely useless license. Congratulations to the WMF
> for wasting a whole load of time. How are we meant to use it when the
> deadline was 2 days ago? Anything added to our projects since then
> would need to be deleted in order to transfer to CC, which includes
> any content added during the discussion about whether we want to
> switch which will take some time.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/
My blog: http://talk.blogbus.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/shizhao
cnbloggercon2008 at Guangzhou(11/15-16) http://cnbloggercon.org

[[zh:User:Shizhao]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2008/11/3 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
> 2008/11/3 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com>:
>> Referring to:
>>
>> "An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License,
>> and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere
>> other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into
>> the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus
>> incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."
>>
>> I get the feeling that your reading of this section is not completely
>> accurate.
>
> That's correct. Changes originating in the wiki to be relicensed can
> still be relicensed past November 1, in fact until the 2009 deadline
> for relicensing. I haven't checked the FAQ (we didn't receive an
> advance copy of it), but it is possible that it doesn't correctly
> reflect this point.

Ok, that's marginally better. We don't need to delete everything
posted in the past 2 days (and the subsequent time until we decide
whether or not to switch) we just have to scour through it all and
delete those parts that weren't originally posted to whatever project
you're on - that includes anything transwikied and anything
translated. I stand by my original assessment, it's a useless license.

And it seems the FAQ is very badly written, do you have a contact
there that you can inform?

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

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/11/3 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
>> 2008/11/3 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com>:
>>> Referring to:
>>>
>>> "An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License,
>>> and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere
>>> other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into
>>> the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus
>>> incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."
>>>
>>> I get the feeling that your reading of this section is not completely
>>> accurate.
>>
>> That's correct. Changes originating in the wiki to be relicensed can
>> still be relicensed past November 1, in fact until the 2009 deadline
>> for relicensing. I haven't checked the FAQ (we didn't receive an
>> advance copy of it), but it is possible that it doesn't correctly
>> reflect this point.
>
> Ok, that's marginally better. We don't need to delete everything
> posted in the past 2 days (and the subsequent time until we decide
> whether or not to switch) we just have to scour through it all and
> delete those parts that weren't originally posted to whatever project
> you're on - that includes anything transwikied and anything
> translated. I stand by my original assessment, it's a useless license.
>

I'm following up on what Bence mentioned first here: What about e.g.
images that we receive through permissions@wikimedia.org between
November 1 and (hopefully) Novermber X? These were obviously
published first somewhere else than a Wiki...what's the position on
this? I'm not intending to spread panic (*especially* because I'm
really not a copyright law expert and at the moment somewhat too tired
for analytical reading of the license), but still, if the permissions
team should stop handle permissions for the moment, it had better be
told...

Best regards,
Michael


--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler@gmail.com

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

2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:

> Ok, that's marginally better. We don't need to delete everything
> posted in the past 2 days (and the subsequent time until we decide
> whether or not to switch) we just have to scour through it all and
> delete those parts that weren't originally posted to whatever project
> you're on - that includes anything transwikied and anything
> translated.

Why does translation and transwikiing prove a problem? It seems
entirely reasonable to treat the entire complex of Wikimedia GFDL
wikis as a single "group" for the purpose of this license - we already
do this with GFDL 1.2, as people happily say things like "see the edit
history on fr.wp for original authors"

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

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

Images are handled under different licenses? It doesn't seem very wise to license them under a documentation license




________________________________
From: Michael Bimmler <mbimmler@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2008 8:36:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GNU FDL 1.3 released!

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/11/3 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
>> 2008/11/3 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com>:
>>> Referring to:
>>>
>>> "An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License,
>>> and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere
>>> other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into
>>> the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus
>>> incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."
>>>
>>> I get the feeling that your reading of this section is not completely
>>> accurate.
>>
>> That's correct. Changes originating in the wiki to be relicensed can
>> still be relicensed past November 1, in fact until the 2009 deadline
>> for relicensing. I haven't checked the FAQ (we didn't receive an
>> advance copy of it), but it is possible that it doesn't correctly
>> reflect this point.
>
> Ok, that's marginally better. We don't need to delete everything
> posted in the past 2 days (and the subsequent time until we decide
> whether or not to switch) we just have to scour through it all and
> delete those parts that weren't originally posted to whatever project
> you're on - that includes anything transwikied and anything
> translated. I stand by my original assessment, it's a useless license.
>

I'm following up on what Bence mentioned first here: What about e.g.
images that we receive through permissions@wikimedia.org between
November 1 and (hopefully) Novermber X?  These were obviously
published first somewhere else than a Wiki...what's the position on
this? I'm not intending to spread panic (*especially* because I'm
really not a copyright law expert and at the moment somewhat too tired
for analytical reading of the license), but still, if the permissions
team should stop handle permissions for the moment, it had better be
told...

Best regards,
Michael


--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
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

2008/11/3 Andrew Gray <shimgray@gmail.com>:
> 2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:
>
>> Ok, that's marginally better. We don't need to delete everything
>> posted in the past 2 days (and the subsequent time until we decide
>> whether or not to switch) we just have to scour through it all and
>> delete those parts that weren't originally posted to whatever project
>> you're on - that includes anything transwikied and anything
>> translated.
>
> Why does translation and transwikiing prove a problem? It seems
> entirely reasonable to treat the entire complex of Wikimedia GFDL
> wikis as a single "group" for the purpose of this license - we already
> do this with GFDL 1.2, as people happily say things like "see the edit
> history on fr.wp for original authors"

Reusers of our content regularly say "See the article history on
Wikipedia for the original authors" we don't consider every use and
reuse of Wikimedia content to be part of one big project. There is an
argument that each project can be considered one work, rather than
each article being a separate work, but I've never heard it argued
that the whole of Wikimedia is one work.

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

Why, quite a few images we receive are handled under GFDL and not CC.
Call it unwise but that's the reality for the moment.

M.

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Images are handled under different licenses? It doesn't seem very wise to license them under a documentation license
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Michael Bimmler <mbimmler@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 3, 2008 8:36:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GNU FDL 1.3 released!
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2008/11/3 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
>>> 2008/11/3 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com>:
>>>> Referring to:
>>>>
>>>> "An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License,
>>>> and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere
>>>> other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into
>>>> the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus
>>>> incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."
>>>>
>>>> I get the feeling that your reading of this section is not completely
>>>> accurate.
>>>
>>> That's correct. Changes originating in the wiki to be relicensed can
>>> still be relicensed past November 1, in fact until the 2009 deadline
>>> for relicensing. I haven't checked the FAQ (we didn't receive an
>>> advance copy of it), but it is possible that it doesn't correctly
>>> reflect this point.
>>
>> Ok, that's marginally better. We don't need to delete everything
>> posted in the past 2 days (and the subsequent time until we decide
>> whether or not to switch) we just have to scour through it all and
>> delete those parts that weren't originally posted to whatever project
>> you're on - that includes anything transwikied and anything
>> translated. I stand by my original assessment, it's a useless license.
>>
>
> I'm following up on what Bence mentioned first here: What about e.g.
> images that we receive through permissions@wikimedia.org between
> November 1 and (hopefully) Novermber X? These were obviously
> published first somewhere else than a Wiki...what's the position on
> this? I'm not intending to spread panic (*especially* because I'm
> really not a copyright law expert and at the moment somewhat too tired
> for analytical reading of the license), but still, if the permissions
> team should stop handle permissions for the moment, it had better be
> told...
>
> Best regards,
> Michael
>
>
> --
> Michael Bimmler
> mbimmler@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler@gmail.com

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

2008/11/3 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>:
> Images are handled under different licenses? It doesn't seem very wise to license them under a documentation license

It's not wise to license an encyclopaedia under a documentation
license either, we still do it (because there wasn't a good
alternative when the decision was made, as I understand it).

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

2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:
> Ok, that's marginally better. We don't need to delete everything
> posted in the past 2 days (and the subsequent time until we decide
> whether or not to switch) we just have to scour through it all and
> delete those parts that weren't originally posted to whatever project
> you're on - that includes anything transwikied and anything
> translated.

No. Please re-read the "eligible for licensing" section and the
definition of an "MMC Site". Wikipedia.org can clearly be considered a
single "MMC Site". This doesn't require interpreting all of Wikipedia
as a single work. Notice that even the definition of MMC uses the word
"works".

> And it seems the FAQ is very badly written, do you have a contact
> there that you can inform?

Yes.
--
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

Right now we have a massive mix-and-match licensing scheme when it
comes to images.

Regardless of whether any of them are affected by this, we will still
have a massive variety of image licenses after any migration takes
places.

At the moment, I think the focus needs to be sorting out the text
license, and not let ourselves get too hung up on image rights, which
are going to be a mess regardless.

-Robert Rohde


On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why, quite a few images we receive are handled under GFDL and not CC.
> Call it unwise but that's the reality for the moment.
>
> M.
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Images are handled under different licenses? It doesn't seem very wise to license them under a documentation license
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Michael Bimmler <mbimmler@gmail.com>
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Sent: Monday, November 3, 2008 8:36:23 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GNU FDL 1.3 released!
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2008/11/3 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
>>>> 2008/11/3 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com>:
>>>>> Referring to:
>>>>>
>>>>> "An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License,
>>>>> and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere
>>>>> other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into
>>>>> the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus
>>>>> incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."
>>>>>
>>>>> I get the feeling that your reading of this section is not completely
>>>>> accurate.
>>>>
>>>> That's correct. Changes originating in the wiki to be relicensed can
>>>> still be relicensed past November 1, in fact until the 2009 deadline
>>>> for relicensing. I haven't checked the FAQ (we didn't receive an
>>>> advance copy of it), but it is possible that it doesn't correctly
>>>> reflect this point.
>>>
>>> Ok, that's marginally better. We don't need to delete everything
>>> posted in the past 2 days (and the subsequent time until we decide
>>> whether or not to switch) we just have to scour through it all and
>>> delete those parts that weren't originally posted to whatever project
>>> you're on - that includes anything transwikied and anything
>>> translated. I stand by my original assessment, it's a useless license.
>>>
>>
>> I'm following up on what Bence mentioned first here: What about e.g.
>> images that we receive through permissions@wikimedia.org between
>> November 1 and (hopefully) Novermber X? These were obviously
>> published first somewhere else than a Wiki...what's the position on
>> this? I'm not intending to spread panic (*especially* because I'm
>> really not a copyright law expert and at the moment somewhat too tired
>> for analytical reading of the license), but still, if the permissions
>> team should stop handle permissions for the moment, it had better be
>> told...
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Bimmler
>> mbimmler@gmail.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Bimmler
> mbimmler@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

2008/11/3 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
> 2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>:
>> Ok, that's marginally better. We don't need to delete everything
>> posted in the past 2 days (and the subsequent time until we decide
>> whether or not to switch) we just have to scour through it all and
>> delete those parts that weren't originally posted to whatever project
>> you're on - that includes anything transwikied and anything
>> translated.
>
> No. Please re-read the "eligible for licensing" section and the
> definition of an "MMC Site". Wikipedia.org can clearly be considered a
> single "MMC Site". This doesn't require interpreting all of Wikipedia
> as a single work. Notice that even the definition of MMC uses the word
> "works".

Ok, so the extent of the problem is reducing, but there are still
going to be things added between the deadline and whenever we decide
to switch (assuming we do switch, that isn't definite). It's nothing
short of absurd to have the deadline two days before the license was
released. I told you it was important to run a draft by the community
before releasing the final copy, this is exactly what I was talking
about.

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