The GFDL allows for an invariant section on works for Acknolwledgements. If I add such a named section to an article it is immune from deletion or significant modification of my contributions, No? It is quite reasonable to think that a GFDL programme manual needs to have an acknolwedgements section, why not an encyclopedia as well. Any academic that produces articles under a grant is required to have such a named section, so wikipedia should allow for an equivalent section on each article.
And no, I am not trying to make a POINT... Its in the license and has a good rationale. Will propose a policy to highlight the existence of GFDL section 4.K soon.
Peter
On 01/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
The GFDL allows for an invariant section on works for Acknolwledgements. If I add such a named section to an article it is immune from deletion or significant modification of my contributions, No?
Text contributed to Wikipedia must be GFDL with no invariant sections. You can have other licenses, but you must have that one. Editors claiming exemption from this have usually had their contributions deleted and their account blocked, for what I would have hoped were obvious reasons.
- d.
On 02/04/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
The GFDL allows for an invariant section on works for Acknolwledgements. If I add such a named section to an article it is immune from deletion or significant modification of my contributions, No?
Text contributed to Wikipedia must be GFDL with no invariant sections. You can have other licenses, but you must have that one. Editors claiming exemption from this have usually had their contributions deleted and their account blocked, for what I would have hoped were obvious reasons.
'All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License' at the bottom of every page
See Section 4.K on the wikipedia hosted page [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_Li...
I was never shown the "no invariant sections" statement when I contributed my past entries, and to change the license would be to relicence everyones contributions...
It is entirely logical that if someone is contributing as part of an academic grant that they should be able to acknolwedge that.
Peter
On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
'All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License' at the bottom of every page
See Section 4.K on the wikipedia hosted page [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_Li...
I was never shown the "no invariant sections" statement when I contributed my past entries, and to change the license would be to relicence everyones contributions...
It is entirely logical that if someone is contributing as part of an academic grant that they should be able to acknolwedge that.
Not at present an issue, as nobody added invariant sections or acknowledgements previously. Thus there are no previous contributions with invariant sections to be irritated about. Furthermore, the terms do not forbid the creation of derivative works with invariant sections - that is, we are not creating a new license called "GFDL Without Invariant Sections." We are saying "By hitting the submit button you are saying that the text in this window is GFDL and has no invariant sections."
-Phil
On 02/04/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
'All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License' at the bottom of every page
See Section 4.K on the wikipedia hosted page [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_Li...
I was never shown the "no invariant sections" statement when I contributed my past entries, and to change the license would be to relicence everyones contributions...
It is entirely logical that if someone is contributing as part of an academic grant that they should be able to acknolwedge that.
Not at present an issue, as nobody added invariant sections or acknowledgements previously. Thus there are no previous contributions with invariant sections to be irritated about. Furthermore, the terms do not forbid the creation of derivative works with invariant sections
- that is, we are not creating a new license called "GFDL Without
Invariant Sections." We are saying "By hitting the submit button you are saying that the text in this window is GFDL and has no invariant sections."
-Phil
Okay, so that part is not clear, but it is there...
How long has "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts." been at the bottom of the edit page? Just wondering.
And in these cases, why hasn't wikipedia been completely compatible with CC-BY-SA since its beginning? I was under the impression the only sticking point were these parts.
The statement at the bottom of the page should indicate the invariant exception btw, it is unclear that you are pointing to a document that needs further clarification, even with the link to Wikipedia:Copyrights, which btw implies that there might be cases where Invariant Sections could be included under the non-invariant GFDL version that wikipedia uses.
Linking to the verbatim text of an incomplete license isn't desirable ;)
Peter
Peter Ansell schreef:
And in these cases, why hasn't wikipedia been completely compatible with CC-BY-SA since its beginning?
Probably because:
[[Wikipedia]]: "Launched in January 2001" [[Creative Commons licenses]]: "released on December 16, 2002"
Except for some very simple ones (such as release to the public domain), licenses are rarely compatible, unless that was a specific aim of the author of one of them.
Eugene
Okay, so that part is not clear, but it is there...
How long has "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later
version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts."
been at the bottom of the edit page? Just wondering.
Years. I don't know about since the beginning, but certainly a long time.
And in these cases, why hasn't wikipedia been completely compatible with CC-BY-SA since its beginning? I was under the impression the only sticking point were these parts.
I believe the GFDL requires derived works to be distributed under the GFDL, not just a license that is similar to the GFDL, so isn't compatible with any other license however similar it may be. (IANAL, YMMV, OMGWTFBBQ)
The statement at the bottom of the page should indicate the invariant exception btw, it is unclear that you are pointing to a document that needs further clarification, even with the link to Wikipedia:Copyrights, which btw implies that there might be cases where Invariant Sections could be included under the non-invariant GFDL version that wikipedia uses.
Linking to the verbatim text of an incomplete license isn't desirable ;)
It does indicate it - you just have to follow the footnote.
On 02/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, so that part is not clear, but it is there... How long has "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later
You're unlikely to get anywhere being querulous on the subject. Wikipedia text is GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts; if you don't like this, then this isn't the project for you.
- d.
On 02/04/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, so that part is not clear, but it is there... How long has "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later
You're unlikely to get anywhere being querulous on the subject. Wikipedia text is GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any
later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover
Texts; if you don't like this, then this isn't the project for you.
It used to be version 1.1... how many base version changes are going to happen?
Peter
Peter Ansell schreef:
How long has "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later
It used to be version 1.1... how many base version changes are going to happen?
At least one: to a version of the GFDL which is compatible with a CC license.
Note that this is entirely legal. An early contributor to Wikipedia would have licensed his contribution as "GFDL 1.1 or later". This gave Wikipedia the right to distribute unchanged and modified versions of that contribution under any GFDL version larger than 1.1. With the change in the Wikipedia license, we chose to only use part of the rights granted to us: namely, those in GFDL 1.2 or later. That's an option given by the original contributor.
Personally, I would have preferred to give our downstream users the widest available choice of licenses: so GFDL 1.1 or later. WP chose otherwise.
Note that those early contributions are still available under the GFDL 1.1. Wikipedia just chooses not to publicize that option. If a copyright holder wants to do that, he can, for example by including a statement to that effect on his user page. Such statements can only add licensing options (such as dual licensing), not take away (for example by refusing to release your edits under the GFDL; or by insisting on invariant sections. People have been blocked for this).
Eugene
On 02/04/2008, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Peter Ansell schreef:
How long has "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later
It used to be version 1.1... how many base version changes are going to happen?
At least one: to a version of the GFDL which is compatible with a CC license.
Note that this is entirely legal. An early contributor to Wikipedia would have licensed his contribution as "GFDL 1.1 or later". This gave Wikipedia the right to distribute unchanged and modified versions of that contribution under any GFDL version larger than 1.1. With the change in the Wikipedia license, we chose to only use part of the rights granted to us: namely, those in GFDL 1.2 or later. That's an option given by the original contributor.
Personally, I would have preferred to give our downstream users the widest available choice of licenses: so GFDL 1.1 or later. WP chose otherwise.
Note that those early contributions are still available under the GFDL 1.1. Wikipedia just chooses not to publicize that option. If a copyright holder wants to do that, he can, for example by including a statement to that effect on his user page. Such statements can only add licensing options (such as dual licensing), not take away (for example by refusing to release your edits under the GFDL; or by insisting on invariant sections. People have been blocked for this).
It may be deemed to be intentionally misleading to unilaterally change the set of allowed license versions without making it clear that some contributions *and their future modifications* are clearly allowed to be downloaded under version 1.1 as wikipedia is not given copyright owner status in order to modify this clause. The idea of free information shouldn't stop people from always using a single license to their materials and modifications of their materials.
What were the major changes between 1.1 and 1.2 that wikipedia deemed necessary to change the entire license over btw?
Peter
Peter Ansell schreef:
It may be deemed to be intentionally misleading to unilaterally change the set of allowed license versions without making it clear that some contributions *and their future modifications* are clearly allowed to be downloaded under version 1.1 as wikipedia is not given copyright owner status in order to modify this clause.
This is not true. If person A licenses his text as "GFDL 1.1 or later", person B is allowed to accept that text under the terms of GFDL 1.2, and to modify it, and to release his modified version under GFDL 1.2.
Person A cannot force person B to release the modified text under all of the licenses that person A released his versions under. Otherwise, dual licensing would add restrictions; not create more options for downstream users.
Eugene
On 02/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
It may be deemed to be intentionally misleading to unilaterally change the set of allowed license versions without making it clear that some contributions *and their future modifications* are clearly allowed to be downloaded under version 1.1 as wikipedia is not given copyright owner status in order to modify this clause.
Don't have to. The FSF can modify and they have done so. And since that time people have not been releasing their edits under 1.1.
The idea of free information shouldn't stop people from always using a single license to their materials and modifications of their materials.
You are free to run a project following those principles. Changes in both statute and case law make it impractical and learning from experience make it undesirable.
What were the major changes between 1.1 and 1.2 that wikipedia deemed necessary to change the entire license over btw?
Peter
No reason not to change over.
Also, just for interest sake, why was the following edit made [1] ... when it is clear that it is allowed previously anyway. In the future will people be told that Wikipedia is licensed under "version 2.2 or later" or "1.3 or later" when it is clear some contributions are inevitably available under 1.1 and it should be clear that it is 1.1 or later. Using "or later" or unilaterally changing the base version doesn't invalidate ones right to interpret the prior versions as binding on text contributed under them. (Interestingly that change was made after the Bomis collection copyright notice was removed so it is unclear who has the copyright on the collection in order to possibly delegitimise the use of 1.1 to interpret text contributed pre that date, and text modified post that date)
Really should include all of the relevant licenses instead of just the current one implying that everything is in the current one.
I like the approach of a number of open source projects who form foundations to own the copyright to contributed material, as they avoid these thorny issues with relicensing past works.
Peter
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyrights&diff=1080...
On 02/04/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
'All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License' at the bottom of every page
See Section 4.K on the wikipedia hosted page [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_Li...
I was never shown the "no invariant sections" statement when I contributed my past entries, and to change the license would be to relicence everyones contributions...
It is entirely logical that if someone is contributing as part of an academic grant that they should be able to acknolwedge that.
Not at present an issue, as nobody added invariant sections or acknowledgements previously. Thus there are no previous contributions with invariant sections to be irritated about. Furthermore, the terms do not forbid the creation of derivative works with invariant sections
- that is, we are not creating a new license called "GFDL Without
Invariant Sections." We are saying "By hitting the submit button you are saying that the text in this window is GFDL and has no invariant sections."
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Also, just for interest sake, why was the following edit made [1] ... when it is clear that it is allowed previously anyway. In the future will people be told that Wikipedia is licensed under "version 2.2 or later" or "1.3 or later" when it is clear some contributions are inevitably available under 1.1 and it should be clear that it is 1.1 or later. Using "or later" or unilaterally changing the base version doesn't invalidate ones right to interpret the prior versions as binding on text contributed under them. (Interestingly that change was made after the Bomis collection copyright notice was removed so it is unclear who has the copyright on the collection in order to possibly delegitimise the use of 1.1 to interpret text contributed pre that date, and text modified post that date)
Remember, Wikipedia is a user of the content just like anyone else is. It can use the content under any license it's been released under. The content which was released early on when we used 1.1 can be used under 1.1 or 1.2, Wikipedia chooses to use it under 1.2. That doesn't stop other people using it under 1.1 if they want to (they may have difficultly working out what content is available under that version, but that's not Wikipedia's problem [at least, not legally speaking]).
Really should include all of the relevant licenses instead of just the current one implying that everything is in the current one.
I like the approach of a number of open source projects who form foundations to own the copyright to contributed material, as they avoid these thorny issues with relicensing past works.
Peter
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyrights&diff=1080...
On 02/04/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
'All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License' at the bottom of every page
See Section 4.K on the wikipedia hosted page [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_Li...
I was never shown the "no invariant sections" statement when I contributed my past entries, and to change the license would be to relicence everyones contributions...
It is entirely logical that if someone is contributing as part of an academic grant that they should be able to acknolwedge that.
Not at present an issue, as nobody added invariant sections or acknowledgements previously. Thus there are no previous contributions with invariant sections to be irritated about. Furthermore, the terms do not forbid the creation of derivative works with invariant sections
- that is, we are not creating a new license called "GFDL Without
Invariant Sections." We are saying "By hitting the submit button you are saying that the text in this window is GFDL and has no invariant sections."
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/04/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Also, just for interest sake, why was the following edit made [1] ... when it is clear that it is allowed previously anyway. In the future will people be told that Wikipedia is licensed under "version 2.2 or later" or "1.3 or later" when it is clear some contributions are inevitably available under 1.1 and it should be clear that it is 1.1 or later. Using "or later" or unilaterally changing the base version doesn't invalidate ones right to interpret the prior versions as binding on text contributed under them. (Interestingly that change was made after the Bomis collection copyright notice was removed so it is unclear who has the copyright on the collection in order to possibly delegitimise the use of 1.1 to interpret text contributed pre that date, and text modified post that date)
Remember, Wikipedia is a user of the content just like anyone else is. It can use the content under any license it's been released under. The content which was released early on when we used 1.1 can be used under 1.1 or 1.2, Wikipedia chooses to use it under 1.2. That doesn't stop other people using it under 1.1 if they want to (they may have difficultly working out what content is available under that version, but that's not Wikipedia's problem [at least, not legally speaking]).
Technically if you obscure the fact that previous contributions were made under version 1.1, then you are saying that you don't consider any to be available under 1.1. Wikipedia doesn't have the right to change the "or later" clause to suit its purposes really. It is accepting contributions under a perceived contract and it should put them out under the same. If any user could reinterpret contracts like that than a future version may be produced which may not suit an author who wanted to stay with version 1.1 or 1.2 and it is not up to wikipedia to say they can't, or imply they can't.
On the other hand, there is the possibility that wikipedia could say they are offering all content under a single specific license, and not "version or later", and they would seem to be fine. It is only the bumping out of old versions that worries me as the author could still legitimately download a copy of the information under version 1.1 if it was derived from before the license bump. It is actually pretty simple to figure out, a simple check to see whether the contribution was made before wikipedia changed to 1.2 should be sufficient.
The text at the bottom of the page with a reference to another page which adds conditions is still quite unclear to me. If the following were at the bottom of each page it would eliminate the necessity to go to another page to discover that the license linked on the page contains an optional restriction which wikipedia uses.
"All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.1 or later with no invariant sections."
Peter
Peter Ansell schreef:
The text at the bottom of the page with a reference to another page which adds conditions is still quite unclear to me. If the following were at the bottom of each page it would eliminate the necessity to go to another page to discover that the license linked on the page contains an optional restriction which wikipedia uses.
"All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.1 or later with no invariant sections."
1) You mean version 1.2 there. We have no rights to distribute the major part of our contents (everything written after June 2003) under version 1.1 of the GFDL.
2) "no invariant sections" is not a restriction. The terms at the bottom of each page are our copyright statement: it's for re-users of our content. It means they do not need to copy any part of the page if they don't want to. It's a right they have.
It's a restriction for our contributors, yes. They may not add any invariant sections. But that is on each edit page quite clearly.
Eugene
On 02/04/2008, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Peter Ansell schreef:
The text at the bottom of the page with a reference to another page which adds conditions is still quite unclear to me. If the following were at the bottom of each page it would eliminate the necessity to go to another page to discover that the license linked on the page contains an optional restriction which wikipedia uses.
"All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.1 or later with no invariant sections."
- You mean version 1.2 there. We have no rights to distribute the major
part of our contents (everything written after June 2003) under version 1.1 of the GFDL.
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. 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.
- "no invariant sections" is not a restriction. The terms at the bottom
of each page are our copyright statement: it's for re-users of our content. It means they do not need to copy any part of the page if they don't want to. It's a right they have.
It's a restriction for our contributors, yes. They may not add any invariant sections. But that is on each edit page quite clearly.
It is a clarification, without it one could read that you are distributing under GFDL 1.2 and since your statement there did not include the clarification it would not be deemed necessary. The fact that apart from the section on Wikipedia:Copyrights about no invariants, the entirety of the rest of the page is changes quite regularly for a Copyright statement.
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.
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.
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 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. If wikipedia stuck with a constant "vX.Y or later" it would be much simpler. Changing the base version "just because" is never a good reason with legal issues.
Peter
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 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).
If wikipedia stuck with a constant "vX.Y or later" it would be much simpler. Changing the base version "just because" is never a good reason with legal issues.
That much I agree with - I wasn't involved in the decision, but I doubt it was done "just because". Perhaps someone that was following such things at the time could give us the real reasons.
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
Ansell, due respect, it sounds like you are fishing for a way to recover from missing the invariant section verbiage. Your questions seem to have been sufficiently answered, it doesn't appear that anyone so far agrees with your interpretation.
Do you have a substantive problem that your argument addresses?
Nathan
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.
You're right, Wikipedia does not have the right to stop someone from reusing content under the original license, but it isn't doing that. Wikipedia is using the content under the latest license (which it is allowed to do because of the "or later" clause). Another user can still use it under the original license if they want. Wikipedia has no obligation to tell people what licenses the content is available under, just what license it is actually using the content under.
I think we're going round in circles now. I've made it as clear as I can, if you still don't understand I suggest you consult a lawyer.
On 02/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Technically if you obscure the fact that previous contributions were made under version 1.1, then you are saying that you don't consider any to be available under 1.1.
Nop we just don't consider the issue of which were under 1.1 to be of import.
Wikipedia doesn't have the right to change the "or later" clause to suit its purposes really. It is accepting contributions under a perceived contract and it should put them out under the same.
It does
If any user could reinterpret contracts like that than a future version may be produced which may not suit an author who wanted to stay with version 1.1 or 1.2 and it is not up to wikipedia to say they can't, or imply they can't.
The author can do what they like with their work but as part of releasing it under 1.1 they agree to updates
On the other hand, there is the possibility that wikipedia could say they are offering all content under a single specific license, and not "version or later", and they would seem to be fine.
No we wish to see that or latter clause used.
It is only the bumping out of old versions that worries me as the author could still legitimately download a copy of the information under version 1.1 if it was derived from before the license bump. It is actually pretty simple to figure out, a simple check to see whether the contribution was made before wikipedia changed to 1.2 should be sufficient.
Nope. The derivatives are under 1.2 or latter only not 1.1
The text at the bottom of the page with a reference to another page which adds conditions is still quite unclear to me. If the following were at the bottom of each page it would eliminate the necessity to go to another page to discover that the license linked on the page contains an optional restriction which wikipedia uses.
Err that other page wouldn't be the edit page by any chance? The restrictions are mostly of interest to editors so it would appear logical to mention them on the edit page
"All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation
License version 1.1 or later with no invariant sections."
It isn't true though. Why are you so attached to 1.1?
Technically if you obscure the fact that previous contributions were made under version 1.1, then you are saying that you don't consider any to be available under 1.1.
IANAL, but that sounds like complete nonsense to me.
Wikipedia doesn't have the right to change the "or later" clause to suit its purposes really. It is accepting contributions under a perceived contract and it should put them out under the same. If any user could reinterpret contracts like that than a future version may be produced which may not suit an author who wanted to stay with version 1.1 or 1.2 and it is not up to wikipedia to say they can't, or imply they can't.
When you post something to Wikipedia you are trusting that the FSF won't release a new version that you find unacceptable - if you don't trust FSF not to do that, don't post on Wikipedia. (As I understand it, "or later" clauses aren't legally valid in all jurisdictions, so you may have a point depending on exactly where the people involved are.) Wikipedia can impose whatever restrictions it likes on posting content to it (give or take a few exceptions, possibly) and you always have the right not to post to Wikipedia.
On the other hand, there is the possibility that wikipedia could say they are offering all content under a single specific license, and not "version or later", and they would seem to be fine. It is only the bumping out of old versions that worries me as the author could still legitimately download a copy of the information under version 1.1 if it was derived from before the license bump. It is actually pretty simple to figure out, a simple check to see whether the contribution was made before wikipedia changed to 1.2 should be sufficient.
Wikipedia is using the content under version 1.2, you are releasing it under version 1.2 or later. Another user can use it under 1.1 if it was released under 1.1, just as they can use it under CC-by-SA if it was released under CC-by-SA - that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Remember, you aren't releasing the content to Wikipedia, you are releasing it under a free license and Wikipedia is then using it under that license.
The text at the bottom of the page with a reference to another page which adds conditions is still quite unclear to me. If the following were at the bottom of each page it would eliminate the necessity to go to another page to discover that the license linked on the page contains an optional restriction which wikipedia uses.
"All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation
License version 1.1 or later with no invariant sections."
It's already there. As I've said before - follow the footnote. (That's the * at the end of the statement - click it and it will take you further down the **same page** where the details are.)
Peter Ansell schreef:
See Section 4.K on the wikipedia hosted page [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_Li...
I was never shown the "no invariant sections" statement when I contributed my past entries, and to change the license would be to relicence everyones contributions...
At the bottom of each page is the text "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See [[Copyrights]] for details.)" Copyrights links to [[WP:Copyrights]], which specifies the exact licensing terms: "with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts."
At the bottom of each edit page, this is repeated.
If you'd like to change this, be aware that Wikipedia used to have invariant sections; they were removed because they were considered non-free.
It is entirely logical that if someone is contributing as part of an academic grant that they should be able to acknolwedge that.
Yes, on the side of the contributor it is logical to include an acknowledgment; on WP's side, however, it is logical to remove such non-free (because not removable) sections, which may mean removing the entire contribution.
Eugene
On 02/04/2008, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Peter Ansell schreef: Yes, on the side of the contributor it is logical to include an acknowledgment; on WP's side, however, it is logical to remove such non-free (because not removable) sections, which may mean removing the entire contribution.
Classic doublethink... I am removing information because you did not give me the right to remove it.
Peter
Peter Ansell schreef:
On 02/04/2008, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Yes, on the side of the contributor it is logical to include an acknowledgment; on WP's side, however, it is logical to remove such non-free (because not removable) sections, which may mean removing the entire contribution.
Classic doublethink... I am removing information because you did not give me the right to remove it.
You're offering us content, half of which we like (actual content), half of which we don't like (obligatory acknowledgments); you're not giving us the choice to accept only the part we want, it has to be all or nothing. We choose nothing.
It's nothing out of the ordinary. If a gift has strings attached, we do not have to accept it.
Eugene
'All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License' at the bottom of every page
See Section 4.K on the wikipedia hosted page [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_Li...
I was never shown the "no invariant sections" statement when I contributed my past entries, and to change the license would be to relicence everyones contributions...
It is entirely logical that if someone is contributing as part of an academic grant that they should be able to acknolwedge that.
Follow the footnote, it says:
"^ GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts."
On 01/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
I was never shown the "no invariant sections" statement when I contributed my past entries, and to change the license would be to relicence everyones contributions...
You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*.
Click the star or scroll down: ^ GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.
Shown every time you clicked edit.
On 01/04/2008, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
The GFDL allows for an invariant section on works for Acknolwledgements. If I add such a named section to an article it is immune from deletion or significant modification of my contributions
Immune from significant modification, maybe. It's certainly not immune from deletion (although the rest of the contribution would also have to be deleted). We have no obligation to accept your contributions.