[Foundation-l] GFDL-only + OTRS

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

[Foundation-l] Video and subtitles

[Foundation-l] Using Wikisource as...

Pedro Sanchez

24 Jun 2009 24 Jun '09

3:53 p.m.

With the license move... do we still accept GFDL-only material? I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL only.

Show replies by date

David Gerard

24 Jun 24 Jun

3:57 p.m.

2009/6/24 Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

With the license move... do we still accept GFDL-only material? I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL only.

Is this images for Commons? I'd personally like to deprecate the GFDL, but if it's a Commons-accepted free content licence then there's no reason not to accept it. - d.

Pharos

5:09 p.m.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM, David Gerard<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2009/6/24 Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com>om>:

With the license move... do we still accept GFDL-only material? I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL only.

Is this images for Commons? I'd personally like to deprecate the GFDL, but if it's a Commons-accepted free content licence then there's no reason not to accept it.

Of course, there are and always have been a wide range of free content licenses used for images on Commons, not just GFDL and CC. Thanks, Pharos

...

- d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Pedro Sanchez

8:04 p.m.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

Of course, there are and always have been a wide range of free content licenses used for images on Commons, not just GFDL and CC. Thanks, Pharos

OTRS doesn't handle only commons. This meant wikipedia's text

Michael Snow

8:13 p.m.

Pedro Sanchez wrote:

...

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

Of course, there are and always have been a wide range of free content licenses used for images on Commons, not just GFDL and CC. Thanks, Pharos

OTRS doesn't handle only commons. This meant wikipedia's text

Text may not be GFDL-only at this point. --Michael Snow

Thomas Dalton

8:44 p.m.

2009/6/24 Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)verizon.net>et>:

...

Pedro Sanchez wrote:

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

Of course, there are and always have been a wide range of free content licenses used for images on Commons, not just GFDL and CC. Thanks, Pharos

OTRS doesn't handle only commons. This meant wikipedia's text

Text may not be GFDL-only at this point.

Or at any point from now on, unless we want to make the content impossible to reasonably reuse.

Robert Rohde

9:04 p.m.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)verizon.net> wrote:

...

Pedro Sanchez wrote:

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com wrote:

Of course, there are and always have been a wide range of free content licenses used for images on Commons, not just GFDL and CC. Thanks, Pharos

OTRS doesn't handle only commons. This meant wikipedia's text

Text may not be GFDL-only at this point.

Actually, there is an important added point that OTRS-ers may help with. Text originally published under GFDL-only somewhere outside of the Wikimedia projects can only be relicensed if it was included in one of the WMF projects before Nov. 1st, 2008. (Or if the original publisher decides to change the license.) So, anyone that has handled OTRS requests associated with the inclusion of GFDL-only text since last November should look at those as potential copyright violations at this point. This applies specifically to works published elsewhere under the GFDL. It does not apply if the work was published elsewhere, but the first GFDL publication was in a WMF site. -Robert Rohde

Gerard Meijssen

26 Jun 26 Jun

4:02 p.m.

Hoi, Given that the GFDL is a viral license, it is not obvious that we should accept GFDL only material. Thanks, GerardM 2009/6/24 Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>

...

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM, David Gerard<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2009/6/24 Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com>om>: > With the license move... > do we still accept GFDL-only material? > I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL

only.

Is this images for Commons? I'd personally like to deprecate the GFDL, but if it's a Commons-accepted free content licence then there's no reason not to accept it.

Of course, there are and always have been a wide range of free content licenses used for images on Commons, not just GFDL and CC. Thanks, Pharos

- d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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

Nikola Smolenski

27 Jun 27 Jun

5:32 a.m.

Дана Friday 26 June 2009 18:02:57 Gerard Meijssen написа:

...

Given that the GFDL is a viral license, it is not obvious that we should accept GFDL only material.

Does not follow.

Gerard Meijssen

8:43 a.m.

Hoi, It is not obvious because a viral license assumes that all other content will be contiminated with the same license. Hence when GFDL only is incompatlible with our projects this material cannot be used in our projects. This defeats the objective of Commons. This should be obvious and hence it does follow that it is correct to indicate that GFDL only material is not suitable. Thanks, GerardM 2009/6/27 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk(a)eunet.yu>

...

Дана Friday 26 June 2009 18:02:57 Gerard Meijssen написа:

Given that the GFDL is a viral license, it is not obvious that we should accept GFDL only material.

Does not follow. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Petr Kadlec

28 Jun 28 Jun

3:45 p.m.

2009/6/27 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

It is not obvious because a viral license assumes that all other content will be contiminated with the same license. Hence when GFDL only is incompatlible with our projects this material cannot be used in our projects. This defeats the objective of Commons.

Mere being on the same server (i.e. on Commons) does not trigger the virality of the license. And since we have been combining GFDL text with CC-BY-SA-only pictures (et al.) in our projects for many years, I don’t think we should now hardly switch to strong-copyleft beliefs and ban all GFDL.

...

This should be obvious and hence it does follow that it is correct to indicate that GFDL only material is not suitable.

GFDL is a free culture license, copyleft (license virality) is a completely acceptable condition for Commons. -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]

Gerard Meijssen

5:49 p.m.

Hoi, The conditions have changed and consequently it should be clear that what we did in the past has a reduced relevance for what we do in the future. When material is not usable for our projects it has no place on Commons. One of the reasons why I feel so strong about it are the people who promised to be nasty about "their" material that should not become available under a Creative Commons licens and who deny the option of interoperability. Either this material can be used or it has no place on Commons. Thanks, GerardM 2009/6/28 Petr Kadlec <petr.kadlec(a)gmail.com>

...

2009/6/27 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:

This should be obvious and hence it does follow that it is correct to indicate that GFDL only material is not suitable.

GFDL is a free culture license, copyleft (license virality) is a completely acceptable condition for Commons. -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthony

24 Jun 24 Jun

5:36 p.m.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2009/6/24 Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com>om>:

With the license move... do we still accept GFDL-only material? I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL

only. Is this images for Commons? I'd personally like to deprecate the GFDL, but if it's a Commons-accepted free content licence then there's no reason not to accept it.

Are GFDL images compatible with non-GFDL articles? I thought the FSF said they weren't.

Pedro Sanchez

8:04 p.m.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:57 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2009/6/24 Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com>om>:

With the license move... do we still accept GFDL-only material? I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL

only. Is this images for Commons? I'd personally like to deprecate the GFDL, but if it's a Commons-accepted free content licence then there's no reason not to accept it. - d.

No, it's Wikipedia's text

geni

9:39 p.m.

2009/6/24 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

2009/6/24 Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com>om>:

With the license move... do we still accept GFDL-only material? I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL only.

Is this images for Commons? I'd personally like to deprecate the GFDL, but if it's a Commons-accepted free content licence then there's no reason not to accept it.

Commons accepts all freely licensed files. Under current foundation policy which regards to what is a free license the GFDL is a free license. Thus commons cannot stop accepting such images without changing it's scope. It's also the case that killing off GFDL-only would likely require us by the same reasoning to kill of GPL and that would cause significant issues. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_Migration_Task_Force#Will… -- geni

5440

days inactive

5444

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

14 comments

11 participants

tags (0)

participants (11)

Anthony
David Gerard
geni
Gerard Meijssen
Michael Snow
Nikola Smolenski
Pedro Sanchez
Petr Kadlec
Pharos
Robert Rohde
Thomas Dalton