On 02/04/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/04/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Well, maybe there is no clear "all text" statement that can be made here, as some of it must be distributed using the terms of the original contributor, of which version 1.2 may be the chosen version for display on wikipedia but version 1.1 should be available for people who choose to if the text derived from before June 2003.
It is available under 1.1, but Wikipedia has no obligation to say so.
Anyone seriously challenging this may think otherwise and use the lack of transparency in this part as a negative factor. Particularly if the challenge related to the "or later" clauses which are completely unique to Free Software licenses and hence have not been interpreted by a court of law AFAIK so far. "Or later" does not imply "only 'later or later' ".
I don't understand. Could you rephrase that, possibly?
I can accept any version from 1.1 onwards for content previous to the 2003 changeover. This does not imply that after 2003 I am only able to accept relicensed content from wikipedia under 1.2 onwards because they did not consult with the copyright owners before making new changes "only" available under different terms. There is a big difference between being able to accept any of the versions, as 1.1 or later implies, and being only able to accept the one that wikipedia chose, 1.2, and any later ones, but not earlier ones. I guess the area of future implied contract agreement without specific terms might be unique to the places where wikipedia hosts its data. It is not usual under generally anti-retroactive law systems to imply that "or later" clauses are necessarily valid.
I still do not see how it is up to wikipedia to be allowed to specify the base version which may be chosen by users when contributors in the past had a wider range of possible licenses to choose from for the same content. Content providers of free material should not reduce the rights of consumers, or attempt to hide the fact that they are reducing their rights IMO.
Wikipedia is not a content provider, it is a content user. The content is provided by the contributors, and they can release it under whatever licenses they please as long as one of them is the license required by Wikipedia (they can choose not to release it under that license, but then it cannot be posted to Wikipedia). Wikipedia has every right to specify what content can be used on Wikipedia - that is all it is doing.
I don't see how they are able to change their agreement to license content under version 1.1 or later to make it 1.2 or later without consulting the copyright owners to see whether they agree that the redistribution is not limiting the rights of users who want to use it under version 1.1 for whatever reason they see fit.
What agreement to license content? Wikipedia isn't licensing anything, it's using things that other people have licensed. Wikipedia isn't changing how anything is licensed, it's just changing what license Wikipedia is using it under (and requiring of future contributions).
It is changing the range of possible licenses that wikipedia agrees to license the otherwise copyrighted content produced by the contributors that is important. Having the option to relicense content from a user under a new version or any later version using "or later" clauses seems kind of suspicious, but it is unique and hence untested so it should be fine as long as the or later doesn't just progressively migrate through the set of licenses and disallow people making changes to old content based on earlier licenses at their option.
If Wikipedia isn't "licensing" anything then why bother insisting that their users agree to a specific license for the content so wikipedia can comply with copyright laws? Wikipedia should specifically state what version they are using content under, and clearly show content which is available under an irrevocable agreement from users to license their content under earlier versions at the option of any future user.
I wonder who first made up the idea of rolling revisions of licenses with users agreeing to any and all future licenses no matter what functional difference they contain including giving the ability to future users to change range that are going to sub-license content under. It seems really really fragile to me. Most corporations require users/customers to explicitly accept new contracts or at least give notice that they will change to a new version as the only authoritative version, in order to make them legally binding, and they own the copyright to the items they are distributing where wikipedia only technically owns a license to the content as long as the license is valid in a given jurisdiction, at which point there would have to be a large purge of illegally licensed material from wikipedia if it were found not to be (sub-)licensing copyrighted material in a legal manner.
Sounds rather lax for people to be so unsure about the set of licenses they are agreeing to give wikipedia access to for sub-licensing now and in the future.
Peter