Mailing List Archive

mizusumashi, 25/07/2009 16:54:
> Q1) All media files that have been licensed under the GFDL and allowed
> to relicense under CC-BY-SA were relicensed by
> [[wmf:Resolution:Licensing update approval]]?

Yes, all GFDL "1.2 and later". See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GFDL_1.3_relicensing_criteria

> Q2) Now, I know, we can't import text licensed under not CC-BY-SA but
> only GFDL. How about media files? Can I upload a media file licensed
> under not CC-BY-SA but only GFDL?

It depends on communities. The only WMF policy is still
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy

Nemo

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

Hoi,
Uploading material that is incompatible with our license, I would personally
consider it a bad faith move. Only when it is considered that the inclusion
of a GFDL file is similar to fair use within the context of a Wikipedia
clone would it be acceptable. This however possibly negates the reason for
uploading under the GFDL of the uploader.

Commons was originally conceived as a shared repository for all WMF
projects. When the WMF projects are not allowed to use material from
Commons, it is definetly not the place to upload new incompatible material.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/8/4 Nemo_bis <nemowiki@gmail.com>

> mizusumashi, 25/07/2009 16:54:
> > Q1) All media files that have been licensed under the GFDL and allowed
> > to relicense under CC-BY-SA were relicensed by
> > [[wmf:Resolution:Licensing update approval]]?
>
> Yes, all GFDL "1.2 and later". See
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GFDL_1.3_relicensing_criteria
>
> > Q2) Now, I know, we can't import text licensed under not CC-BY-SA but
> > only GFDL. How about media files? Can I upload a media file licensed
> > under not CC-BY-SA but only GFDL?
>
> It depends on communities. The only WMF policy is still
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
>
> Nemo
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Hello,

Wikimedia prefers material under a CC license but it will stay possible to
upload gfdl only material.

But whenever its possible try to upload it under a cc-by license or a dual
license.

Best regards,
Huib
--

Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor



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

2009/8/4 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> Uploading material that is incompatible with our license, I would personally
> consider it a bad faith move. Only when it is considered that the inclusion
> of a GFDL file is similar to fair use within the context of a Wikipedia
> clone would it be acceptable. This however possibly negates the reason for
> uploading under the GFDL of the uploader.
>
> Commons was originally conceived as a shared repository for all WMF
> projects. When the WMF projects are not allowed to use material from
> Commons, it is definetly not the place to upload new incompatible material.

I have said this to you before: GFDL has never been incompatible with
CC in the context of embedding images in encyclopedic text. At the
very least, we have always insisted they are compatible (otherwise we
would not have been able to include CC-licensed images in GFDL text,
which we did all the time).

GFDL-only uploads are not very nice (and I am sad to see them,
especially on featured media); by all means, encourage CC licenses.
But don’t spread FUD, please.

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

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

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Gerard
Meijssen<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:

> The fact that all of our material can not be made available under the
> CC-by-sa license because  of some people insisting on using the wrong
> license is beyond me. The fact that we insist that the two licenses are
> compatible does not make them compatible. The fact that it is unlikely that
> WE get into problems, does not justify the continued practice of accepting
> GFDL only material when our reusers might.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM

Commons accepts materials that are free according to
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition GFDL works fall within that
definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and
we've called Wikipedia the free encyclopedia all the time, so we
cannot just dismiss GFDL now only because we've found a license that
works better for us. The interincompatibility is probably the worst
feature of copyleft, but we've lived long time with that and there's
no reason to stop doing it.

Cruccone

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

Hoi,
Please note that I only call for no more new uploads of GFDL material. Also
my main argument is ignored; the ability and surety that such documents can
be legally used by our downstream users of our content.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/8/4 Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco@gmail.com>

> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Gerard
> Meijssen<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact that all of our material can not be made available under the
> > CC-by-sa license because of some people insisting on using the wrong
> > license is beyond me. The fact that we insist that the two licenses are
> > compatible does not make them compatible. The fact that it is unlikely
> that
> > WE get into problems, does not justify the continued practice of
> accepting
> > GFDL only material when our reusers might.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
>
> Commons accepts materials that are free according to
> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition GFDL works fall within that
> definition, so they're free. We have lived eight years with GFDL and
> we've called Wikipedia the free encyclopedia all the time, so we
> cannot just dismiss GFDL now only because we've found a license that
> works better for us. The interincompatibility is probably the worst
> feature of copyleft, but we've lived long time with that and there's
> no reason to stop doing it.
>
> Cruccone
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

2009/8/4 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>:
> GFDL licensed images are still perfectly usable in freely licensed
> reference works, in spite of the  inconveniences in the license.

I am not sure what you mean, exactly. Do you consider GFDL to be
“strong copyleft”, i.e. that the viral clause applies to the text
surrounding a GFDL image? In that case, I don’t see where the “freely
licensed reference works” come from (GFDL does not talk about “freely
licensed”, only “under precisely this License”), and in that case,
CC-BY-SA-only Wikipedia articles would not be allowed to use GFDL-only
images. (In a similar way, GFDL-only Wikipedia articles of a recent
past would probably not have been allowed to use CC-only licensed
images.)

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

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

Hoi,
It is exactly this why new GFDL images are imho inappropriate. Again,
Commons functions as a repository for all our projects and consequently it
is not really acceptable when it can not function as such for its material.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/8/5 Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com>

> 2009/8/4 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>:
> > GFDL licensed images are still perfectly usable in freely licensed
> > reference works, in spite of the inconveniences in the license.
>
> I am not sure what you mean, exactly. Do you consider GFDL to be
> “strong copyleft”, i.e. that the viral clause applies to the text
> surrounding a GFDL image? In that case, I don’t see where the “freely
> licensed reference works” come from (GFDL does not talk about “freely
> licensed”, only “under precisely this License”), and in that case,
> CC-BY-SA-only Wikipedia articles would not be allowed to use GFDL-only
> images. (In a similar way, GFDL-only Wikipedia articles of a recent
> past would probably not have been allowed to use CC-only licensed
> images.)
>
> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

2009/8/6 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> It is exactly this why new GFDL images are imho inappropriate. Again,
> Commons functions as a repository for all our projects and consequently it
> is not really acceptable when it can not function as such for its material.

So, your opinion is that Wikipedia (et al.) had always been violating
copyrights of authors of CC-licensed images used in its articles?
Interesting to hear that…

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

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

Hoi,
My opinion is that the CC-by-sa has always been the right license. The GFDL
served us well and I am really grateful to the FSF that they were so
gracious to allow us to move over to the CC-by-sa. The CC-by-sa is a
different license and it was the accepted wisdom that CC-by-sa material
could be used in a GFDL environment.

The problem that I now have with the GFDL is very much the result of the
unending threatening noises on this list about the legalities of the GFDL
and the trheat to sue to "get ensure that their rights prevail". I have
sadly learned to head such warnings. Now I do believe that the existing
material is largely by people who provided them with all the best
intentions.The militancy of the GFDL nuts have spoilt my faith in a
continued acceptable outcome. That is why I argue against continued
acceptance of GFDL only material.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/8/6 Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec@gmail.com>

> 2009/8/6 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> > It is exactly this why new GFDL images are imho inappropriate. Again,
> > Commons functions as a repository for all our projects and consequently
> it
> > is not really acceptable when it can not function as such for its
> material.
>
> So, your opinion is that Wikipedia (et al.) had always been violating
> copyrights of authors of CC-licensed images used in its articles?
> Interesting to hear that…
>
> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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