On 02/04/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/04/2008, Peter Ansell
<ansell.peter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/04/2008, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)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