Wikimedia-l December 2007

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

163 participants
159 discussions

Re: [Foundation-l] What's our dream license?
by Andrew Whitworth 02 Dec '07

02 Dec '07

With all the talk about changing to CC-BY-SA, or making modifications to the GFDL etc, it raises the question, what is our dream license? If we are going through all the effort to modify the existing GFDL, and mass-migrate the projects to a less restrictive license, maybe it makes more sense for us to draft our own. Enough people have mentioned concerns with CC-BY-SA to make me think that perhaps it isn't ideal either. Of course, once we switch, we could pressure CC into making changes to the license to suit us, but that seems like a waste of our effort when we could draft a perfect license and then switch directly to that. --Andrew Whitworth

4 5

Re: [Foundation-l] Requirements for a strong copyleft license
by Gavin Baker 02 Dec '07

02 Dec '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > From: "Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> > > On 02/12/2007, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> If a visual artist doesn't want copyleft for images they should just >> use CC-BY (or better, 'PD'). >> >> The purpose of copyleft is to help expand the pool of free content >> with a tit-for-tat mechanism. 'Weak copyleft' simply isn't >> interesting in terms of its ability to achieve this goal. > > Is "weak copyleft" not comparable to the LGPL? LGPL appears to have a > place; why not "weak copyleft"? > >> The question of "does anyone here want a weak copyleft license" is >> just the far more interesting one... >> >> I do not believe there is any point to having a copyleft license for >> media which isn't strong. Does anyone here disagree? > > At the risk of being stoned... yeah. > I just don't consider an article that uses a photograph of mine as > illustration to be a a derivative of my work. > I don't want an article, blog or book author to have to license their > whole text under CC-BY-SA just because they use my image. > HOWEVER, I do want them to be obliged to make explicit the license of > my work, that is offer it to others under the same conditions. My > work, not theirs. That is how I think "weak copyleft" differs from > CC-BY or PD. Actually, this *is* how CC BY works. The requirements of CC BY include both attribution of authorship (including a linkback) and notification of the license. This is similar to the BSD software licenses: derivatives don't have to be similarly licensed, but they still have to attribute the BSD-licensed code and inform users that it's available under the BSD license. Quoting the license summary: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ > Under the following conditions: > > Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by > the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they > endorse you or your use of the work). > > For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the > license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to > this web page. For the avoidance of doubt: I'm not making any substantive claim here, just correcting an inaccurate statement. > So "weak copyleft", if we are talking about the same thing, suits me well. AFAICT, the term "weak copyleft" seems to have a specific origin in software libraries that allow linking without requiring the linked program to be similarly licensed. Whether or not this is analogous to the "embedding" of media in another work (as in an image on a page of text) is probably a matter of opinion. It might be best to leave the phrase aside and focus on the specific issue of use in context. Quoting a recent email: > [Similar use cases] are an article in a magazine, a song on a CD or > in a radio show, and a TV show on a TV channel. At which point would > the requirement of a free context stop? It's arguable that none of these uses invokes the derivative right, so their "context" (what would be called "the derivative" if it was, in fact, derived) has no requirement to be similarly licensed. Assuming this is the case, then the question becomes: in which use cases, even if the use is not derivative, do we want to require the context of the use to be similarly licensed? Even this wordy language is rather imprecise, but I think it's closer to the issue than wondering about "strong" vs. "weak" copyleft. (FWIW, although CC licenses have previously been passed to downstream users through the right of modification, I think it is worth considering tying this to some different right. Not necessarily that we *should* do so, but that we should consider it. I see a parallel in the new AGPL license, where the license had previously been passed to downstream users through the distribution of the software, but is now also tied to the accessing of the software over a network. To me, this says that the important thing is to pass the freedoms to downstream users, and which uses we tie that to is simply the means and not an end in itself. That's not an argument for writing new requirements willy-nilly into licenses - -- we should carefully consider the impact of the mechanisms we choose - -- but just that we shouldn't fail to consider new means to the same end simply because we've always done it this way.) > regards, > Brianna Regards, - -- Gavin Baker http://www.gavinbaker.com/ gavin(a)gavinbaker.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHUwGwtLXQdLhFpekRAlv5AJ9Tt2BMGq2q43ayl7Fr1L4FzGUZ1wCdHfIW JT5ATCHc5DAHmKbxG5iseVA= =1hII -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] What's wrong with CC-BY-SA?
by Mike Godwin 02 Dec '07

02 Dec '07

Milos writes: > GFDL (or GSFDL) compatible with CC-BY-SA is completely other story > because FSF would be behind such license.... > In other words, while we have FSF license, everything is fine. I believe that some of the concern being voiced here ignores the fact that FSF is a stakeholder in all these negotiations, and that FSF approval of any harmonization of GFDL and CC-BY-SA will be required. So, even if you don't trust Creative Commons, if you *do* trust FSF, you should be fine with whatever the outcome of this process is, since that outcome must be approved by FSF. --Mike

1 0

[Foundation-l] Harmonization: One license or two?
by Robert Rohde 02 Dec '07

02 Dec '07

Okay, so there is an agreement in principle to harmonize the GFDL's version of copyleft and that of CC-BY-SA. Does that mean there will be two licenses, i.e. both a FSF license and CC license that reference each other and say they are interchangeable but still have different text and sponsorship? OR Does that mean that the FSF and CC plan to jointly write a single new license so that there is truly a uniting of both flavors of copyleft under a single document? I realized this morning that I was assuming the former, i.e. two separate but equal licenses offering themselves as interchangeable; however, some other Wikipedians read the same announcements and assumed the latter, i.e. foretelling the creation of a new unified license that both parties must agree to. At face value, creating a single united document seems obviously preferable in order to avoid confusion and possible conflicting interpretations, but it is not clear to me that creating a single license is actually the intention. The text on compatible licenses already embedded in CC-BY-SA 3.0seems to strongly suggest that CC has envisioned a future world of independent but interchangeable licenses. Can anyone comment with surety which scenario is being worked towards? -Robert A. Rohde

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] What's wrong with CC-BY-SA?
by Mike Godwin 02 Dec '07

02 Dec '07

geni writes: > You are ignoring the other players. The FSF and art libre. If there > were to be any changes to the CC-BY-SA we might have to talk to the > EFF since we probably don't want them splitting their Open Audio > License off again. > > Until we see a full draft there is little community can do either way. For what it's worth, EFF favors in principle the harmonization of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. (Full disclosure -- I worked as staff counsel for EFF for nine years, and I maintain plenty of contacts there.) They take the view that CC-BY-SA is viral, but nevertheless makes licensed content easier to use than the current GFDL (designed for software manuals) does. I view this as a feature, not a bug, since I believe the mission of Wikimedia Foundation is to share information and make sure it remains shared, and not merely to be a custodian of the meaning of GFDL (that's what FSF is for). --Mike

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] What's wrong with CC-BY-SA?
by Mike Godwin 02 Dec '07

02 Dec '07

Robert Rohde writes: > As Greg already noted, motivations/intentions matter a great deal > when the > license has an open ended "or later versions" clause. If a court > found that > the license actually meant something other than what the Creative > Commons > had intended, then they could simply write a new version. I'm not sure how Creative Commons would have even the theoretical unilateral power to do this without FSF approval. What we are talking about is harmonization of CC-BY-SA with FSF's GFDL. --Mike

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 45, Issue 8
by Mike Godwin 02 Dec '07

02 Dec '07

Gregory Maxwell writes: > The CC-By-SA text, which you quoted incompletely, is fairly > unambiguous: it even goes out of its way to point out that you are > subject to the copyleft when you combine covered sound or video to > create a new work > > What is problematic is that the Creative Commons has advised people > with advice that is at odds with the license. This is not legally problematic, however it may be a problem for some folks otherwise. The plain language of the CC-BY-SA text would trump anyone's attempt to define the license in a way that is at odds with the text. No court would rule otherwise, even if Larry Lessig showed up and argued the other side. I should add that I don't think speculation about the motives or thought processes of Creative Commons folks tells me much. After a while, I just look at the plain language of the license in question and make my decisions based on that language. --Mike

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] What's wrong with CC-BY-SA?
by John McC 02 Dec '07

02 Dec '07

This is all deeply disturbing, and perhaps even more so that so few voices are raised outside of the groupthink. I don't mean to sound unkind, but I really am disgusted. GFDL is a strong copyleft license: fully viral (any work including work under the GFDL must be GFDL), and fully free (rinse, lather, repeat). If the issue is invariant sections, why not just make a minor change to the license saying that if a document starts without them, it shall remain without them? If the issue is the 7 pages of ugly license attached to works you are selling (that other people actually wrote), just print it on pretty paper. Infuse it with perfume. Put it on microfilm. Whatever. I don't imagine my wife would be too happy if I converted to some odd religion tomorrow and let her know that she's going to have a few sister wives next week. Changing the rules in the middle of the game -- even if a bunch of you think it's a peachy idea -- is disrespectful, shameful, and completely discrediting to the idea of contributing free content with the confidence of knowing your content will always be free like you intended it to be. I'm afraid I'm with Greg here: please make sure that those of us who disagree with this have the opportunity to remove our contributions, as well as all derivatives of our contributions. I'm not saying I'd do it, but I deserve the option. So does anyone who contributes and cares about how their contributions affect the world. -j. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ

2 1

[Foundation-l] Wikimedia among World Economic Forum's 2008 Technology Pioneers
by Brian McNeil 01 Dec '07

01 Dec '07

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_among_World_Economic_Forum% 27s_2008_Technology_Pioneers Thanks to everyone that helped - and kept this a secret until the embargo was lifted. Watch for translations popping up and please feel free to distribute this. Brian McNeil

10 13

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l December 2007