El dom, 10-08-2008 a las 12:59 -0700, Bennett Haselton escribió:
> At 12:39 PM 8/10/2008, Francis Tyers wrote:
> >How can the updated FDL be said to apply to > that work if the
> >authors didn't agree to it? Doesn't the licence text say "GFDL 1.2
> >or later" ? "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify
> >this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
> >Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software
> >Foundation;"
>
> Ah OK, that makes sense.
>
> By the way, that means that if authors are submitting content to
> Wikipedia, with the intention that nobody would be able to create a
> derived work from their article and slap "all rights reserved" on it,
> those authors are putting a lot of trust in the Free Software
> Foundation, aren't they? Since the FSF might someday release a
> version of the FDL which allows third parties to create derivative
> works published under "all rights reserved", like CC-BY does. (Not
> that the FSF is ever likely to do that, obviously, but it's still
> unusual to have an agreement that one party can unilaterally change
> at any time in the future.)
Yep, we all trust in the FSF :)
Fran
El dom, 10-08-2008 a las 12:34 -0700, Bennett Haselton escribió:
> I read at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7876 about the
> agreement to modify the FDL to make it compatible with CC-BY-SA, so
> that Wikipedia articles can be republished under CC-BY-SA. However,
> I was confused about two things:
>
> 1) I thought that the GFDL was already compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0,
> since they both required derivative works to be published under the
> same license. Is there a specific part where they're incompatible,
> or is it just a case that there are ambiguities about compatibility,
> and the FDL will be revised to remove all doubt?
>
> 2) More confusingly, I don't see how you can just "update" a license
> and retroactively apply it to all existing content that had been
> published under an existing license. All the contributors to
> Wikipedia, for example, agreed to the terms of the old FDL when they
> submitted their work. How can the updated FDL be said to apply to
> that work if the authors didn't agree to it?
Doesn't the licence text say "GFDL 1.2 or later" ?
"Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;"
Fran
> 1) I thought that the GFDL was already compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0,
> since they both required derivative works to be published under the
> same license. Is there a specific part where they're incompatible,
> or is it just a case that there are ambiguities about compatibility,
> and the FDL will be revised to remove all doubt?
Indeed, they require both require new versions to be under the same
license as the original, and GFDL isn't the same as CC-BY-SA 3.0, thus
they are incompatible. In spirit, they're pretty similar, but they
have to exactly the same license (up to version numbers, at least) for
them to be interchangeable.
> 2) More confusingly, I don't see how you can just "update" a license
> and retroactively apply it to all existing content that had been
> published under an existing license. All the contributors to
> Wikipedia, for example, agreed to the terms of the old FDL when they
> submitted their work. How can the updated FDL be said to apply to
> that work if the authors didn't agree to it?
Things published on Wikipedia are released under "GFDL v1.2 or later",
so the idea is to make a new version of GFDL which is compatible with
CC-BY-SA.
I read at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7876 about the
agreement to modify the FDL to make it compatible with CC-BY-SA, so
that Wikipedia articles can be republished under CC-BY-SA. However,
I was confused about two things:
1) I thought that the GFDL was already compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0,
since they both required derivative works to be published under the
same license. Is there a specific part where they're incompatible,
or is it just a case that there are ambiguities about compatibility,
and the FDL will be revised to remove all doubt?
2) More confusingly, I don't see how you can just "update" a license
and retroactively apply it to all existing content that had been
published under an existing license. All the contributors to
Wikipedia, for example, agreed to the terms of the old FDL when they
submitted their work. How can the updated FDL be said to apply to
that work if the authors didn't agree to it?
I'm writing an article about Google Knol for Slashdot, about how they
currently allow only CC-BY and CC-NC-BY license options, and arguing
that they should allow CC-BY-SA as an option as well, allowing people
to copy content from Wikipedia to Knol. I argued before when Knol
was first announced:
http://slashdot.org/articles/08/02/15/177258.shtml
that it would be a good idea to have what would essentially be a fork
of Wikipedia where articles could be locked against editing and
signed off on by credentialed experts.
-Bennett
bennett(a)peacefire.org http://www.peacefire.org
(425) 497 9002
I am trying the latest release and I am getting this error message:
A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in
the software. The last attempted database query was:
(SQL query hidden)
from within function "TitleKey::exactMatch". MySQL returned error "1146:
Table 'wikidb.pw_titlekey' doesn't exist (localhost)".
>From Webmin checking the tables showes that every table has the pw_
prefix which I specified at install time.
Suggestions, anyone?
Thanks!
-
John Foster