On 21 Aug 2007 at 14:44:29 +0100, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It's very easy for us to say that they broke the rules. What were they supposed to do?
They should have done something. Actual compliance is rather complicated, but it's not difficult to at least be honourable and admit that it's not your text.
So, basically, we want people reusing our content to show some sign that they are attempting in good faith to comply with the license, even if they don't quite dot the i's and cross the t's in a manner that can't be nitpicked to death by a lawyer. Perhaps we should have, somewhere prominently linked from our copyright license page, some plain-English non-lawyerese explanation of the bare minimum that would be needed by a reuser to show such good faith and not be ridiculed by us (even if we're not generally inclined to sue).
So, basically, we want people reusing our content to show some sign that they are attempting in good faith to comply with the license, even if they don't quite dot the i's and cross the t's in a manner that can't be nitpicked to death by a lawyer. Perhaps we should have, somewhere prominently linked from our copyright license page, some plain-English non-lawyerese explanation of the bare minimum that would be needed by a reuser to show such good faith and not be ridiculed by us (even if we're not generally inclined to sue).
That is exactly what I'm saying, yes, but that's just me. It's not, and can't be, an official position. The official position is that you have to do what the license says, and that's all the official position can ever be, since that's what the law says. I think we have (although I've no idea where) instructions on how to comply with the GFDL, written in as plain English as possible. While we won't generally enforce the license to the letter, we can't say that officially or we are effectively changing the license (and we'd need the permission of pretty much everyone that has ever contributed in order to do that).
On 22/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think we have (although I've no idea where) instructions on how to comply with the GFDL, written in as plain English as possible.
Not that I know of. I even emailed the FSF for clarification and got back that simplifications are oversimplifications and people really do need to read the license.
My goodness the GFDL is a crap license for a wiki ...
- d.
Not that I know of.
I can't find anything either, now that I actually look. The best I can find is a very brief summary at the top of [[Wikipedia:GFDL compliance]].
I even emailed the FSF for clarification and got back that simplifications are oversimplifications and people really do need to read the license.
That's just what I was saying - you can't have an official simplification, since it would end up conflicting with the actual license.
My goodness the GFDL is a crap license for a wiki ...
Too late to do anything about that now, though...
On 23/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
My goodness the GFDL is a crap license for a wiki ...
Too late to do anything about that now, though...
Things could be done if the foundation really wanted to do them.
How? The foundation has no power over the copyright of the content of Wikipedia. Changing license would require the permission of every contributor that hasn't had all their contributions removed. And that includes many anonymous contributors, and there is no way we can get their permission, since we can't identify them.
On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
My goodness the GFDL is a crap license for a wiki ...
Too late to do anything about that now, though...
Things could be done if the foundation really wanted to do them.
How? The foundation has no power over the copyright of the content of Wikipedia. Changing license would require the permission of every contributor that hasn't had all their contributions removed. And that includes many anonymous contributors, and there is no way we can get their permission, since we can't identify them.
Changing the license of every article would take a long time, but it could be done. Changing a fraction of the articles would be even easier.
And that's even if you accept your assertion that "Changing license would require the permission of every contributor that hasn't had all their contributions removed".
Finally, anonymous contributors don't really have standing to challenge most of the problematic parts of the GFDL. They're anonymous, so they can't sue you for not putting their name on the title page or in the section entitled history.
Anthony schreef:
Changing the license of every article would take a long time, but it could be done. Changing a fraction of the articles would be even easier.
We will be able to change the license to GFDL v2, when it is released. And after that, it may be relicensed to a new GNU Wiki license, which will hopefully be better suited for Wikis. But we have to rely on the good sense of the FSF for that...
Is the Foundation talking to the FSF about this? (I know this is not the best mailing list to ask this.)
Eugene
We will be able to change the license to GFDL v2, when it is released. And after that, it may be relicensed to a new GNU Wiki license, which will hopefully be better suited for Wikis. But we have to rely on the good sense of the FSF for that...
I don't know what kind of changes are proposed, but there must be fairly limited if it's going to be compatible with the current license.
On 23/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We will be able to change the license to GFDL v2, when it is released. And after that, it may be relicensed to a new GNU Wiki license, which will hopefully be better suited for Wikis. But we have to rely on the good sense of the FSF for that...
I don't know what kind of changes are proposed, but there must be fairly limited if it's going to be compatible with the current license.
"or later"
There's a page on meta discussing changes we'd like for the next GFDL. It's not this one -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_for_a_modified_GFDL
- but I forget where it is. Anyone?
- d.
On 8/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"or later"
There's a page on meta discussing changes we'd like for the next GFDL. It's not this one -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_for_a_modified_GFDL
- but I forget where it is. Anyone?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_suggestions
Actualy more interested in the GSFDL as while it looks like it will still be seriously poor it will at least attempt to be a free licsense.
Thomas Dalton schreef:
We will be able to change the license to GFDL v2, when it is released. And after that, it may be relicensed to a new GNU Wiki license, which will hopefully be better suited for Wikis. But we have to rely on the good sense of the FSF for that...
I don't know what kind of changes are proposed, but there must be fairly limited if it's going to be compatible with the current license.
The new license doesn't need to be compatible with the current one, it just needs to be "similar in spirit" (GFDL section 10).
Eugene
On 8/23/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Anthony schreef:
Changing the license of every article would take a long time, but it could be done. Changing a fraction of the articles would be even easier.
We will be able to change the license to GFDL v2, when it is released. And after that, it may be relicensed to a new GNU Wiki license, which will hopefully be better suited for Wikis. But we have to rely on the good sense of the FSF for that...
Is the Foundation talking to the FSF about this? (I know this is not the best mailing list to ask this.)
Yes, we are talking about the new versions.
Also, if you have suggestions you would like to see us talk to them about, please make them on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_suggestions -- or make them on the public draft on the FSF site, also, but it's interesting to see what Wikimedians think specifically.
-Kat
Changing the license of every article would take a long time, but it could be done. Changing a fraction of the articles would be even easier.
The fraction that have only been edited by logged in and currently active users, yes.
And that's even if you accept your assertion that "Changing license would require the permission of every contributor that hasn't had all their contributions removed".
Do you question the assertion? The only way you could get away with not having someone's permission would be fair use, but that causes problems with reusing parts of articles. While one sentence may be fair use when used in the entire article, it might not be fair use when used as part of just that paragraph.
Finally, anonymous contributors don't really have standing to challenge most of the problematic parts of the GFDL. They're anonymous, so they can't sue you for not putting their name on the title page or in the section entitled history.
I really have no idea how the GFDL interacts with anon users. As far as I know, the license doesn't mention them. That's one of the biggest problems with the GFDL for a wiki.
On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Changing the license of every article would take a long time, but it could be done. Changing a fraction of the articles would be even easier.
The fraction that have only been edited by logged in and currently active users, yes.
Those would be the absolute easiest. Others could be done with a little more effort (especially with some code). And some would be fairly difficult.
And that's even if you accept your assertion that "Changing license would require the permission of every contributor that hasn't had all their contributions removed".
Do you question the assertion?
Yes, I do question it, but I'm not really sure, so I'm willing to assume for the sake of the argument that this assertion is correct.
The only way you could get away with not having someone's permission would be fair use, but that causes problems with reusing parts of articles. While one sentence may be fair use when used in the entire article, it might not be fair use when used as part of just that paragraph.
I wasn't thinking of fair use. I was thinking "work of joint authorship".
I wasn't thinking of fair use. I was thinking "work of joint authorship".
Does it being a work of joint authorship help? The GFDL explicitly states how modifications work, I think, so I don't think we'll be able to use joint authorship to get around it. It would boil down to nullifying the license, which is not something we should be trying to do.
On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
How? The foundation has no power over the copyright of the content of Wikipedia. Changing license would require the permission of every contributor that hasn't had all their contributions removed. And that includes many anonymous contributors, and there is no way we can get their permission, since we can't identify them.
There are side attacks.
The most dirrect would be to figure out a way to change this list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation#Voting_Members
until it contiained only people who are prepared to turn the GFDL into a free license.
Other options are PR based. Ban pure GFDL media uploads and create a press release explaining why.
Moveing away from dirrect confrontation as the host of the largest repositry of GFDL content the foundation should be listened to.
On 8/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Not that I know of. I even emailed the FSF for clarification and got back that simplifications are oversimplifications and people really do need to read the license.
I always found that mildly ironic. If people widely read and understood the GFDL the FSF would lose significant credibility in short order.
My goodness the GFDL is a crap license for a wiki ...
Pure GFDL is useful only for the GNU manifesto nothing else. For anything else CC-BY-ND does the job better.
The modified version of the GFDL we use is just about acceptable for books but is still pretty poor.
On 8/23/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Pure GFDL is useful only for the GNU manifesto nothing else. For anything else CC-BY-ND does the job better.
It's offtopic, but your message betrays a commons misunderstanding about the invariant sections clause of the GFDL. The invariant sections clause isn't at all as offensive as a -ND license. It only allows the author of a document to attach a statement about his relationship to the work ... it can't be used to limit the freedom over the functional parts of the work beyond the inability to remove or cahnge the invariant section itself. Think of it like a really enhanced form of attribution.
Yes, it's silly and obnoxious which is why we don't accept GFDLed content with invariant sections it so it's a non-issue for us...
The modified version of the GFDL we use is just about acceptable for books but is still pretty poor.
The proposed SFDL in the current FSF proposals eliminates invariant sections for documents that don't already have them. Making the issue even more dead.
If you see other ways to improve the FDL please comment more on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_suggestions (Yes, I'm aware that you are one of the few people who already have.. the link is for everyone else).
It's quite possible for the FDL to become the best fitting and best written license for useful content such as educational videos, text books, encyclopedia articles, etc.. but only if we provide a lot of input and have a lot of discussion.
On 8/23/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
It's offtopic, but your message betrays a commons misunderstanding about the invariant sections clause of the GFDL. The invariant sections clause isn't at all as offensive as a -ND license.
No it's more so. It is hard under the CC-BY-ND license to tie free text to non free. The closest you can get would be a collection of CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-ND and you could separate the non free text from the free.
It only allows the author of a document to attach a statement about his relationship to the work
That would be covered by the endorsements clause.
... it can't be used to limit the freedom over the functional parts of the work beyond the inability to remove or cahnge the invariant section itself.
And if the invariant section happens to be a nazi rant you've successfully created a -Nde and Nfr license
Think of it like a really enhanced form of attribution.
Not even close. The attribution clause is largely meaningless outside of the US since the law would require you to credit the author in any case. Attribution isn't generally used as a means for pushing ideology (Mr [[John Portsmouth Football Club Westwood]] excluded).
Yes, it's silly and obnoxious which is why we don't accept GFDLed content with invariant sections it so it's a non-issue for us...
I would argue that it suggests that the FSF on a certain level really doesn't get it.
The proposed SFDL in the current FSF proposals eliminates invariant sections for documents that don't already have them. Making the issue even more dead.
Nope just the obvious ones. Completely misses the invariant sections known as "copyright notices" and "warranty Disclaimers".
If you see other ways to improve the FDL please comment more on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_suggestions (Yes, I'm aware that you are one of the few people who already have.. the link is for everyone else).
It's quite possible for the FDL to become the best fitting and best written license for useful content such as educational videos, text books, encyclopedia articles, etc.. but only if we provide a lot of input and have a lot of discussion.
Discussion would require the FSF to get involved.
On 8/23/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I would argue that it suggests that the FSF on a certain level really doesn't get it.
Come now. The GFDL is a fairly old license and the first license of it's sort. The invariant sections clause was important to some of the initial users of the license.
Times have changed, understandings have improved, and the problem is already fixed in the draft v2 licenses. Get over it.
Nope just the obvious ones. Completely misses the invariant sections known as "copyright notices" and "warranty Disclaimers".
It's a draft for a reason.
Discussion would require the FSF to get involved.
Jesus, Geni. They *are* involved. You've been told this. They want our input. If you keep saying otherwise I will have to send ninjas to flip out and kill you. Even though ninjas are totally sweet, I expect that you would not enjoy being killed.
It is, however, the case that no from the FSF has edited the page. I would not recommend they do so at this point, if for no other reason that to avoid dealing with some of the more 'interesting' types of argument we find in our community. ... um.. like the style of your response here. :)
On 8/23/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I would argue that it suggests that the FSF on a certain level really doesn't get it.
Come now. The GFDL is a fairly old license and the first license of it's sort.
Yes and no. Depends how you define sort and when it first appeared. The NC open content license predates it and the Design Science License appears around the same time
The invariant sections clause was important to some of the initial users of the license.
I don't dispute this.
Times have changed, understandings have improved, and the problem is already fixed in the draft v2 licenses. Get over it.
Last I saw pure GFDL was hanging onto invariant sections although that could be because there is no way to remove them I don't know.
Nope just the obvious ones. Completely misses the invariant sections known as "copyright notices" and "warranty Disclaimers".
It's a draft for a reason.
We shall see
Discussion would require the FSF to get involved.
Jesus, Geni. They *are* involved. You've been told this. They want our input.
11 months ago (minus about 3 days ok). Any statements since then?
If you keep saying otherwise I will have to send ninjas to flip out and kill you. Even though ninjas are totally sweet, I expect that you would not enjoy being killed.
Eh there are worse fates.
It is, however, the case that no from the FSF has edited the page. I would not recommend they do so at this point, if for no other reason that to avoid dealing with some of the more 'interesting' types of argument we find in our community. ... um.. like the style of your response here. :)
Don't want them to edit that page. I want to see a statement from the FSF on the comments they have received so far from everyone wikimedia or otherwise showing that they are thinking about them.
Something along the lines of "XYZ" under consideration, "123" need more commentary, "ABC" probably not at this time.
<quote from="Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>" date="Aug 23, 2007 6:17 PM" />
It is, however, the case that no from the FSF has edited the page. I would not recommend they do so at this point, if for no other reason that to avoid dealing with some of the more 'interesting' types of argument we find in our community. ... um.. like the style of your response here. :)
Don't want them to edit that page. I want to see a statement from the FSF on the comments they have received so far from everyone wikimedia or otherwise showing that they are thinking about them.
I'm a (new) board member at the FSF -- and a WMF advisory board member and editor on the English Wikipedia. I'll ping folks at the FSF about the status of the new GFDL/GSFDL draft and will make sure that Wiki(p|m)edia's concerns are taken into account.
This project is the single largest (and probably, most important) user of the GFDL. I'll do what I can to make sure that your comments are taken into account and given special weight.
Regards, Mako
On 8/24/07, Benj. Mako Hill mako@atdot.cc wrote:
<quote from="Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>" date="Aug 23, 2007 6:17 PM" />
It is, however, the case that no from the FSF has edited the page. I would not recommend they do so at this point, if for no other reason that to avoid dealing with some of the more 'interesting' types of argument we find in our community. ... um.. like the style of your response here. :)
Don't want them to edit that page. I want to see a statement from the FSF on the comments they have received so far from everyone wikimedia or otherwise showing that they are thinking about them.
I'm a (new) board member at the FSF -- and a WMF advisory board member and editor on the English Wikipedia. I'll ping folks at the FSF about the status of the new GFDL/GSFDL draft and will make sure that Wiki(p|m)edia's concerns are taken into account.
This project is the single largest (and probably, most important) user of the GFDL. I'll do what I can to make sure that your comments are taken into account and given special weight.
Thanks, Mako. It's good to know that at least somebody who might be able to do something about this is listening.
Johnleemk
On 8/24/07, Benj. Mako Hill mako@atdot.cc wrote:
I'm a (new) board member at the FSF -- and a WMF advisory board member and editor on the English Wikipedia. I'll ping folks at the FSF about the status of the new GFDL/GSFDL draft and will make sure that Wiki(p|m)edia's concerns are taken into account.
This project is the single largest (and probably, most important) user of the GFDL. I'll do what I can to make sure that your comments are taken into account and given special weight.
Eh given that we like to see wide reuse it is more important the the license be a good general license than be written around wikipedia.