On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Peter Ansell wrote: 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

Peter Ansell schreef: 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

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

Peter Ansell schreef: 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

Peter Ansell schreef: 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

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=108… On 02/04/2008, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 02/04/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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. 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

On 02/04/2008, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> 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. 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. 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.

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

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.

IANAL, but that sounds like complete nonsense to me. 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. 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. 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.)

On 02/04/2008, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> wrote: Classic doublethink... I am removing information because you did not give me the right to remove it. Peter

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."