On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
CC-BY-SA contains a "later version" migration clause, similar to our use of FDL. I expect that we'd update regularly, since updates typically simply address perceived legal & structural problems in prior versions.
It is good to hear it. But, I would like to hear a couple of explanations from some, let's say, German lawyer (a German CC lawyer or WM DE lawyer would be good enough):
- While talking about all licensing issues with the most relevant Serbian copyright lawyer (who was helping in CC localization), I realized that "later version" clause is a very problematic one for the continental law system. However, I expect that it is solved inside of the localized versions of CC licenses for Germany (or even for Serbia, but I really have a lot of problems in understanding what is the exact meaning of one Serbian lawyer saying). So, I am interested in a fictional scenario: There is a project licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 for German jurisdiction. How the migration would be solved there? - Related to this issue, I am interested in compatibility between CC-BY-SA 3.0 from various jurisdictions. I was asked to switch sr.wn to CC-BY 2.5 for Serbian jurisdiction (because of promotion of both, Serbian Wikinews and CC Serbia), but I decided that it is not a good idea while I don't know the legal implications. However, CC-BY license is quite simple and may be reasonably described in one sentence. CC-BY-SA is much more complex and I am sure that we will have legal cases in the future which deals with their compatibility. - What are the legal implications of using CC unported license by person who is under non-US jurisdiction? With GFDL things are quite simple (while not good): If there are some problems, make an international lawsuit. - While it is obvious that newer versions of one free content license are making to address some new technical and legal issues in the sense of the spirit of the license, I am wandering who will decide to switch to a newer license if there are some serious objections: the Board (like in this case) or the community would be asked?
The situation here is not substantively different than with GFDL. We'll accept changes if they make sense to us, and otherwise we won't. The Statement of Intent gives us reasonably broad assurances that future changes will be in the spirit of the license, and specifically, that they will not weaken the copyleft provision of the license. That's all you can really ask for, short of maintaining the license yourself, which has its own problems (license proliferation, increased dependence on WMF as an organization to always act in good faith, etc.).
The main difference between switching between GFDL->CC-BY-SA and a possible switching between CC-BY-SA and some other license is related to the commons sense applied to the first one. Forbidding to Wikimedia to switch to some license more appropriate for a wiki-style development wouldn't be a reasonable choice of FSF. It is a common place in Wikimedian relation to GFDL that we chose the best available free content license which existed in 2001. FSF knows that and it is willing to help.
However, when we switch to CC-BY-SA, there will not be any stupid technical issue which should be addressed. And when we don't have any of problems of such kind, I don't see a reason why someone would willing to help us.
So, to repeat the question: If we realize that CC-BY-SA 12 is against our goals, what are our options for switching from CC-BY-SA 11 to some other license?
You are negotiating now with FSF and I am quite sure that there is a space for making a deal which would lead to effectively double-license system of Wikimedia content. Adding an option that content "may be licensed under CC-BY-SA and under any free content share-alike license decided by the Board and the community" would be wise enough to be sure that we will have the option for escape.
However, I don't like the fact that I've got all important informations in private talks.
WMF has been maximally transparent throughout the process, sharing information from third parties when permitted to do so. FDL 1.3 is still undergoing active revision, and I haven't seen the latest changes myself. The real discussion will become possible when the FSF releases it, which I hope will happen Real Soon Now.
Hm. If I've been informed privately of what are you, Jimmy and Lessig are doing about an issue which is a matter of all of Wikimedians, I can't say that it is transparent enough. You are not dealing with national security or criminal investigation, but with copyrighting material made by hundreds of thousands of people.