Mailing List Archive

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:30 AM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/2/10 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> > That may be the case, but even if it is it still doesn't justify the
> > relicensing that is currently taking place. The power to release content
> > under new licenses should be (and is) held by the authors individually,
> not
> > collectively. "Or later" was meant for minor changes or when fundamental
> > flaws/loopholes were found in the license itself, not for the case when a
> > supermajority of license users decides they should have picked a
> different
> > license.
>
> The history of the GPL suggests otherwise.
>

The text, of both the GPL and the GFDL, states the purpose of "or later"
quite clearly.

"The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU
Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be
similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns."

The only valid reason to make changes to the license is "to address new
problems or concerns". As has been pointed out many times by the people
defending this switch, the concerns and alleged "problems" of the GFDL are
not at all new.

For a similar perspective on this issue, which called the FSF's decision "a
serious moral mistake and breach of trust", see the Open Letter to Richard
Stallman by Chris Frey (http://www.advogato.org/article/990.html).

> The FSF violated an important trust when they introduced this relicensing
> > clause into GFDL 1.3, and that's the biggest flaw with the GFDL.
>
> Nah. By far the biggest flaw with the GFDL was that it was written
> with a rather narrow definition of document in mind.
>

How is that a flaw? Seems like a feature to me. I'd say the attempt to
create a license which works equally well for software documentation,
encyclopedias, t-shirts, and coffee mugs is one of the flaws with CC-BY-SA,
not one of the solutions.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/2/10 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> The text, of both the GPL and the GFDL, states the purpose of "or later"
> quite clearly.
>
> "The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU
> Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be
> similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
> address new problems or concerns."
>
> The only valid reason to make changes to the license is "to address new
> problems or concerns".

You are free to argue that however the history of the freedom or death
clause suggests that the FSF is useing quite a broad definition of
those terms.

>As has been pointed out many times by the people
> defending this switch, the concerns and alleged "problems" of the GFDL are
> not at all new.

Not so.

>
> For a similar perspective on this issue, which called the FSF's decision "a
> serious moral mistake and breach of trust", see the Open Letter to Richard
> Stallman by Chris Frey (http://www.advogato.org/article/990.html).

Actually Chris Frey is taking something close to the opposite position
to you. His position is that was always a potential use for those
clauses but it is a use he didn't expect or want to see actually
happen.



> How is that a flaw? Seems like a feature to me. I'd say the attempt to
> create a license which works equally well for software documentation,
> encyclopedias, t-shirts, and coffee mugs is one of the flaws with CC-BY-SA,
> not one of the solutions.

Yeah that argument might work in about 1950. Actual real world
experience suggests that it doesn't work. The first problem you have
is that content doesn't stay in the same format if left to itself. For
example what format is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Government_hospitalityreduced.png

It was originally published in a magazine. The physical version that
was actually scanned is from a punch annual. It is now an electronic
document. Could be any number of things tomorrow (punch cartoons are
popular in history textbooks for example).

The same pictures may quite legitimately be used in books, on
t-shirts, on calendars, on posters and on websites. Any license that
can't cope with this is living in the wrong century.

The other issue you have is that the GFDL isn't much use for software
documentation. If you want to include bits of code and screen shots
realistically the documentation needs to be GPL.

--
geni

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

2009/2/10 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
> Yeah that argument might work in about 1950. Actual real world
> experience suggests that it doesn't work. The first problem you have
> is that content doesn't stay in the same format if left to itself. For
> example what format is this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Government_hospitalityreduced.png
>
> It was originally published in a magazine. The physical version that
> was actually scanned is from a punch annual. It is now an electronic
> document. Could be any number of things tomorrow (punch cartoons are
> popular in history textbooks for example).
>
> The same pictures may quite legitimately be used in books, on
> t-shirts, on calendars, on posters and on websites. Any license that
> can't cope with this is living in the wrong century.

Maybe the copyright laws are living in the wrong century… According to
the Czech copyright law, the abovementioned image (were it not public
domain due to its age) could not be distributed on the Internet, even
if the original author licensed it under a free license back then (if
free licenses existed back then, of course), because Internet was not
known at the time. Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Czech Copyright Act
[1] forbids (expressis verbis) the author to grant authorization for
*unknown future uses* in a license contract. There is no legal way (in
the Czech Republic) you could permit distribution of your work in a
hyper-sci-fi-virtual-reality-holograph-version that is gonna be
invented ten years from now in a license you are granting now, free or
not.

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]

[1] See e.g. http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=en&id=962#JD__Toc48037811

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

2009/2/10 Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com>:
> Maybe the copyright laws are living in the wrong century…

In quite a few cases yes.

US and Israeli law are kinda okay and common law based systems tend to
work to an extent (partly because they are more open to what we would
call rule lawyering. Treating films as a series of photos is one
classic example). After that some sort of work some don't.

>According to
> the Czech copyright law, the abovementioned image (were it not public
> domain due to its age) could not be distributed on the Internet, even
> if the original author licensed it under a free license back then (if
> free licenses existed back then, of course), because Internet was not
> known at the time. Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Czech Copyright Act
> [1] forbids (expressis verbis) the author to grant authorization for
> *unknown future uses* in a license contract. There is no legal way (in
> the Czech Republic) you could permit distribution of your work in a
> hyper-sci-fi-virtual-reality-holograph-version that is gonna be
> invented ten years from now in a license you are granting now, free or
> not.

I've seen that concept in a few legal systems. I think it goes back to
the Napoleonic code rights of man thing. It makes sense to a degree
when technical advance is slow and you are worried about authors
getting ripped off but yes it has issues when new uses are invented
fairly constantly.

--
geni

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

Anthony wrote:
>
> That may be the case, but even if it is it still doesn't justify the
> relicensing that is currently taking place. The power to release content
> under new licenses should be (and is) held by the authors individually, not
> collectively. "Or later" was meant for minor changes or when fundamental
> flaws/loopholes were found in the license itself, not for the case when a
> supermajority of license users decides they should have picked a different
> license. At least that's what I and many others thought is was meant for.
> The FSF violated an important trust when they introduced this relicensing
> clause into GFDL 1.3, and that's the biggest flaw with the GFDL.
>
> Finally, a point which seems to be missed. The WMF is not considering
> switching from GFDL to CC-BY-SA. It is considering switching from GFDL only
> to dual licensing under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. In terms of protection of the
> legal rights of the copyright owners, such a switch can *only* make things
> worse, not better.

Since you seem adamant that this last point is addressed,
allow me to oblige...

In terms of protection of the legal rights of copyright owners,
FSF is doing that only inasmuch as protecting those is the only
way to ensure the freedom of the content, and that is precisely
the "trust" that they uphold. In no way is the FSF in the business
of being a primary protector of any and all copyright owners
rights; quite the contrary.

I think Stallman himself says it best in his open reply
to the open criticism by Chris Frey:

"In my judgment and that of the FSF board, this licensing
change is fully consistent with our values, our ethics,
and our commitments, and should demonstrate that
the FSF continues to merit your trust. "Or any later
version" licensing enables us to give new permissions
that respond to the needs of the community,
as well as defend against new threats to users' freedom."

...and:

"The impact of the change is limited because the relicensing
option applies to a narrow range of cases: wiki sites such as
Wikipedia containing material which does not use certain
special features of the GFDL, invariant sections and cover
texts, that don't translate into CC-BY-SA."


I really have very little to add to that.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


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