The folks at Creative Commons have posted a draft statement of intent regarding the CC-BY-SA license:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Draft_Attribution-ShareAlike_Intent
I've just read through it, and I'm really, really happy. Through this statement, CC has taken a first stab at defining in detail their intentions as stewards of the license. This is key to building trust with the Wikimedia community and other stakeholders in the free culture movement.
The statement of intent clarifies a number of key points, including a commitment to keep the license in compliance with the Definition of Free Cultural Works, and a strong promise to only broaden, but not narrow the definition of what constitutes an adaptation under the terms of the license.
We are continuing our conversations about that particular aspect, and my personal hope is that we will figure out a way to clearly state through the license that adaptations such as a picture embedded into a newspaper article trigger the share-alike clause, i.e. the newspaper article would be CC-BY-SA licensed. (Or, as I would argue, in those particular cases, any other DFCW compliant license.)
You can post comments regarding the draft on the wiki talk page, or on the cc-licenses mailing list: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
This is a really important development, and I hope that everyone who cares about the future of free culture licenses will get involved in these conversations. :-)
My congratulations go to Creative Commons for taking this initiative.
Erik Moeller wrote:
We are continuing our conversations about that particular aspect, and my personal hope is that we will figure out a way to clearly state through the license that adaptations such as a picture embedded into a newspaper article trigger the share-alike clause, i.e. the newspaper article would be CC-BY-SA licensed. (Or, as I would argue, in those particular cases, any other DFCW compliant license.)
I think your parenthetical permission would be extremely necessary for us, because otherwise the hundreds of cc-by-sa images we have in our own GFDL Wikipedia articles would have licensing problems. IIRC, "our" position, mostly as expressed by Jimmy a few years ago, has been the opposite---that putting an image in a Wikipedia article is mere aggregation, and doesn't trigger the license of either the image or the text. Of course what we say we think the license is doesn't magically make it so, but we should probably not take an official position that would make our own usage not compliant...
-Mark
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
We are continuing our conversations about that particular aspect, and my personal hope is that we will figure out a way to clearly state through the license that adaptations such as a picture embedded into a newspaper article trigger the share-alike clause, i.e. the newspaper article would be CC-BY-SA licensed ...
I think your parenthetical permission would be extremely necessary for us, because otherwise the hundreds of cc-by-sa images we have in our own GFDL Wikipedia articles would have licensing problems ...
Sorry to be dense, but could someone explain the significance of this? What does the new development allow or prevent that wasn't allowed or prevented before?
Sarah
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 8:42 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to be dense, but could someone explain the significance of this? What does the new development allow or prevent that wasn't allowed or prevented before?
CC licenses are well known by gray-zone effects of their conditions: something is possible or not according to a particular interpretation. While interpretations are more strict according to the continental law system, according to the Anglo-Saxon law system things are much more extensible. And we are using the second because of the place where servers and WMF are based.
Usually, licensing conditions (whatever, not only share-alike) are interpreted only in the sense of derivative works of the same type. Which implies that conditions of usage are much PD-like (actually, BY-like) than anything else (SA, NC or ND).
Addressing those problems is a good thing. However, I would like to hear independent interpretations of the new conditions, too (like, for example, MIT interpretation is).
On 05/04/2008, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to be dense, but could someone explain the significance of this? What does the new development allow or prevent that wasn't allowed or prevented before?
The development of the Statement of Intent is the first item on the "CC-BY-SA migration checklist" developed by Erik in December last year. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/035677.html
This checklist came out of weeks (months?) of copious discussion after the idea of "equalising" GFDL and CC-BY-SA was floated. The checklist is a summary of what needs to happen to appease concerns raised about the idea, I think.
Interestingly the last point on the checklist has already occurred (well actually, part of it). The point was:
Some improvements to the CC-BY-SA "frontpage" which includes the
license summary. In addition to any clarifications that might be desirable, I've discussed with Larry before the possibility of clearly labeling CC-BY-SA as a "libre" license, in accordance with the definition at freedomdefined.org -- he has expressed support for this idea. <<< The text hasn't changed, but there is a freedomdefined.org "seal of approval" on the -PD -BY and -BY-SA licenses. Announcement http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8051 Implementation http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Anyway, as to why a "Statement of intent" was considered important in the first place, I think it is/was because the GFDL has a "preamble" which performs a similar function. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html Given that the license guardians can change the terms of future licenses, and these licenses are used with a "...or any later version" clause, a statement of intent helps ease concerns that the guardians may change the terms in a later version, in a way that current licensors would not approve of.
cheers Brianna
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
We are continuing our conversations about that particular aspect, and my personal hope is that we will figure out a way to clearly state through the license that adaptations such as a picture embedded into a newspaper article trigger the share-alike clause, i.e. the newspaper article would be CC-BY-SA licensed. (Or, as I would argue, in those particular cases, any other DFCW compliant license.)
I think your parenthetical permission would be extremely necessary for us, because otherwise the hundreds of cc-by-sa images we have in our own GFDL Wikipedia articles would have licensing problems. IIRC, "our" position, mostly as expressed by Jimmy a few years ago, has been the opposite---that putting an image in a Wikipedia article is mere aggregation, and doesn't trigger the license of either the image or the text. Of course what we say we think the license is doesn't magically make it so, but we should probably not take an official position that would make our own usage not compliant...
This is a tricky issue that has never been tested in any court. As you may be aware FSF has stated that their intention was that aggregation be narrowly drawn, and that aggregation was NOT intented to broadly allow combining text and images in a single work the way we do. The plain text: "A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an 'aggregate' ...", clearly covers things like documents on a hard drive. However, it would be an unusual reading to consider an article as a "volume of a storage and distribution medium" or that the image and text in such an article were "seperate and independent".
In fact, it is not hard to read that section and argue against existing practice and say that added images to text creates "Modified Versions" rather than "Aggregations". If you take that reading then virtually all images used on Wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL, or very unrestrictive terms (like PD) that directly allow GFDL licensing. Adopting that reading of the GFDL would imply that CC-BY-SA images simply shouldn't be used. (One could also argue the same point to conclude that all fair use images are incompatible with the GFDL). In other words, GFDL Wikipedia articles already have licensing concerns that turn on a specific (and perhaps unintended) interpretation of the GFDL.
It is an issue that the WMF projects have mostly been ignoring, which we can get away with until it really makes it into court to decide the meaning of that language, but it is very important in my mind that future licenses (both GFDL and CC) address the merger and cross-compatibility issues. The flip side of this is that if the FSF wrote GFDL-2.0 simply to clarify what was their apparent original intention, then GFDL-2.0 could be expressly incompatible with fair use and CC-SA. Presumably these discussions will aim to prevent such a disruptive future version.
-Robert Rohde
I have three comments related to us:
- I don't care for the name of a particular license. If CC is willing to keep relaxed version of BY-SA, they should do that. However, "CC Wiki license" (whatever it will be) should address our needs. - I would really like to see that CC is working on our license with FSF and/or Software Freedom Law Center. At least to consult them about the conditions. Actually, I am interested to hear what do those two organizations have to say about the new conditions. - If we are willing to keep "... or any later version of the license..." inside of our documents (are we?), I would like to see much more active position of WMF in the process of making new versions of the license. Let's say, our lawyer(s) (Mike or whoever) should periodically inform us about new moments in licensing development and what do other relevant institutions (FSF, SFLC, MIT, FSF Europe...) think about them.
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 4:34 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
The folks at Creative Commons have posted a draft statement of intent regarding the CC-BY-SA license:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Draft_Attribution-ShareAlike_Intent
I've just read through it, and I'm really, really happy. Through this statement, CC has taken a first stab at defining in detail their intentions as stewards of the license. This is key to building trust with the Wikimedia community and other stakeholders in the free culture movement.
The statement of intent clarifies a number of key points, including a commitment to keep the license in compliance with the Definition of Free Cultural Works, and a strong promise to only broaden, but not narrow the definition of what constitutes an adaptation under the terms of the license.
We are continuing our conversations about that particular aspect, and my personal hope is that we will figure out a way to clearly state through the license that adaptations such as a picture embedded into a newspaper article trigger the share-alike clause, i.e. the newspaper article would be CC-BY-SA licensed. (Or, as I would argue, in those particular cases, any other DFCW compliant license.)
You can post comments regarding the draft on the wiki talk page, or on the cc-licenses mailing list: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
This is a really important development, and I hope that everyone who cares about the future of free culture licenses will get involved in these conversations. :-)
My congratulations go to Creative Commons for taking this initiative.
-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 05/04/2008, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I have three comments related to us:
- I don't care for the name of a particular license. If CC is willing
to keep relaxed version of BY-SA, they should do that. However, "CC Wiki license" (whatever it will be) should address our needs.
No thank you we do not need any further increase in the number of licenses floating around
- I would really like to see that CC is working on our license with
FSF and/or Software Freedom Law Center. At least to consult them about the conditions. Actually, I am interested to hear what do those two organizations have to say about the new conditions.
The FSF produced the GFDL. I think that disqualifies then from telling anyone else how to write a free content license.
- If we are willing to keep "... or any later version of the
license..." inside of our documents (are we?), I would like to see much more active position of WMF in the process of making new versions of the license. Let's say, our lawyer(s) (Mike or whoever) should periodically inform us about new moments in licensing development and what do other relevant institutions (FSF, SFLC, MIT, FSF Europe...) think about them.
We get told about the new developments. There just are not very many of them.
2008/4/5, geni geniice@gmail.com:
- I would really like to see that CC is working on our license with
FSF and/or Software Freedom Law Center. At least to consult them about the conditions. Actually, I am interested to hear what do those two organizations have to say about the new conditions.
The FSF produced the GFDL. I think that disqualifies then from telling anyone else how to write a free content license.
Thank you for your constructive behaviour. That they wrote a license that stands in court and that does what it is intended for, of *course* disqualifies them for having a good legal and cultural view (not per se the truth, but a view) on changes in licenses. No, we should never try to ask their opinion, because the risk they could make a valid point is too big! Brrrr
BR, Lodewijk
On 05/04/2008, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/5, geni geniice@gmail.com:
- I would really like to see that CC is working on our license with
FSF and/or Software Freedom Law Center. At least to consult them about the conditions. Actually, I am interested to hear what do those two organizations have to say about the new conditions.
The FSF produced the GFDL. I think that disqualifies then from telling anyone else how to write a free content license.
Thank you for your constructive behaviour.
I like to think I've done what I can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GSFDL http://gplv3.fsf.org/sfdl-draft-2006-09-26.html
What did you do?
That they wrote a license that stands in court and that does what it is intended for,
The GPL? Yes they have shown an ability to write some of the better free software licenses.
of *course* disqualifies them for having a good legal and cultural view (not per se the truth, but a view) on changes in licenses.
No writing the GFDL did that. Ever read the GFDL? I mean really read it and consider what certain elements of it really mean? Consider the case where you want to give a printed copy of an article to someone.
No, we should never try to ask their opinion, because the risk they could make a valid point is too big! Brrrr
They've had years to do so and have not done so. At this point the only useful thing they can do is hand over the GFDL to CC.
2008/4/5, geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 05/04/2008, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/5, geni geniice@gmail.com:
- I would really like to see that CC is working on our license with
FSF and/or Software Freedom Law Center. At least to consult them about the conditions. Actually, I am interested to hear what do those two organizations have to say about the new conditions.
The FSF produced the GFDL. I think that disqualifies then from telling anyone else how to write a free content license.
Thank you for your constructive behaviour.
I like to think I've done what I can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GSFDL http://gplv3.fsf.org/sfdl-draft-2006-09-26.html
What did you do?
That they wrote a license that stands in court and that does what it is intended for,
The GPL? Yes they have shown an ability to write some of the better free software licenses.
of *course* disqualifies them for having a good legal and cultural view (not per se the truth, but a view) on changes in licenses.
No writing the GFDL did that. Ever read the GFDL? I mean really read it and consider what certain elements of it really mean? Consider the case where you want to give a printed copy of an article to someone.
The GFDL is a fine license, for what it is designed for: Documentation for software. We decided to use it for our encyclopedia, as it apperently was the best on the market back then. There is no need to attack FSF for the work they've done because of this. Every license has it's boundaries. I am OK with accepting that the GFDL is not the perfect license for our use, but that does *not* say that the organisation is incapable. I tried to make clear that there work good willing people there, and that they can bring in some good arguments.
Besides that, if you want to make the CC and GFDL interchangable, you'll need the cooperation of FSF to get it going in a smooth way :-)
So no need for your bad feelings/faith, they can only do harm here. I am glad to hear from Jimmy that they are involved in the conversation. Honestly, I wouldn't have expected otherwise.
BR, Lodewijk
No, we should never try to ask their opinion, because the risk they could make a valid point is too big! Brrrr
They've had years to do so and have not done so. At this point the only useful thing they can do is hand over the GFDL to CC.
--
geni
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 12:38 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
- I would really like to see that CC is working on our license with
FSF and/or Software Freedom Law Center. At least to consult them about the conditions. Actually, I am interested to hear what do those two organizations have to say about the new conditions.
The FSF produced the GFDL. I think that disqualifies then from telling anyone else how to write a free content license.
As well as CC made a lot of shit on Internet (SA i not really SA, NC is not really NC, ND is not really ND; actually, according to the various interpretations, the only clear condition is BY), which disqualifies them to write a free content license.
There are always two options: to talk or not to talk.
- If we are willing to keep "... or any later version of the
license..." inside of our documents (are we?), I would like to see much more active position of WMF in the process of making new versions of the license. Let's say, our lawyer(s) (Mike or whoever) should periodically inform us about new moments in licensing development and what do other relevant institutions (FSF, SFLC, MIT, FSF Europe...) think about them.
We get told about the new developments. There just are not very many of them.
I want to hear an analysis of our lawyer (CC lawyers are not *our*; AFAIK, Erik is not a lawyer) about possible consequences of the new features of the license. As well as I want to hear by our lawyer an analysis of contemporary features of the license to which we intend to switch.
And if you don't like FSF so much, I would be quite happy with MIT interpretation, as an independent one.
On 05/04/2008, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 12:38 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
- I would really like to see that CC is working on our license with
FSF and/or Software Freedom Law Center. At least to consult them about the conditions. Actually, I am interested to hear what do those two organizations have to say about the new conditions.
The FSF produced the GFDL. I think that disqualifies then from telling anyone else how to write a free content license.
As well as CC made a lot of shit on Internet (SA i not really SA, NC is not really NC, ND is not really ND; actually, according to the various interpretations, the only clear condition is BY), which disqualifies them to write a free content license.
There are always two options: to talk or not to talk.
CC have been far more willing to engage and fix their mistakes. While the, doesn't do what is says on the tin, issues are annoying the licenses are at least usable in the majority of cases.
I want to hear an analysis of our lawyer (CC lawyers are not *our*; AFAIK, Erik is not a lawyer) about possible consequences of the new features of the license. As well as I want to hear by our lawyer an analysis of contemporary features of the license to which we intend to switch.
Would be useful yes.
And if you don't like FSF so much, I would be quite happy with MIT interpretation, as an independent one.
MIT have experience with software licenses but I don't know much about their recent activity. Any commentary from them would be of interest but ah would they be interested in commenting.
Historical we've tended to pay attention to the Debian mob.
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 7:23 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
MIT have experience with software licenses but I don't know much about their recent activity. Any commentary from them would be of interest but ah would they be interested in commenting.
Historical we've tended to pay attention to the Debian mob.
One of two (I think there were only two) relevant interpretations of CC licenses (for US legal system) which I got last year at CC community list was MIT's interpretation.
It would be good to make a list of relevant institutions which are able to give their interpretation of CC-BY-SA 3.0 and changes added to newer versions.
Also, I am still in doubt how would we solve "... or any later version..." issue with CC-BY-SA. Legal systems are in slow, but constant changes and it is not a good idea to stay for a long time at version which is outdated by changes in the society.
As I may see, Wikinews is still licensed under CC-BY 2.5, for example. Is a document licensed under one version compatible with a document licensed under some later version? How would we decide a switch between BY-SA 3.5 and BY-SA 4.0? What would be our option if something goes wrong and we decide not to use new versions BY-SA anymore, but we still have to be up to date with changes in legal system(s) and society?
Maybe I have a couple of questions more, but I don't want to hear political talks about those issues, I want to hear expert opinions. And I am not asking this just to ask, I really want to know answers to those questions.
Hm. Maybe our "... or any later version..." clause should be "... or any other license approved by the Board and the community" (and define strictly what "community decision" means)? Maybe even to try to find a field for double licensing: one BY-SA, one which "the Board or the community decide"? I understand that those are complex models...
I really don't have a problem with any license or license provider while licensing our projects is under our control.
Hm. Maybe our "... or any later version..." clause should be "... or any other license approved by the Board and the community" (and define strictly what "community decision" means)? Maybe even to try to find a field for double licensing: one BY-SA, one which "the Board or the community decide"? I understand that those are complex models...
That would involve contributors granting Wiki(m|p)edia addition rights. At the moment, Wiki(m|p)edia has the same rights as everyone else and is just a regular user. I think it is desirable to keep things that way.
Just to make clear: CC and FSF talk frequently, and the Software Freedom Law center is involved in those discussion as well, as are Mike Godwin, me, Erik Möller, etc.
So, this whole discussion seems to me to be pretty much moot.
May you inform us about at least some of your conclusions (I am particularly interested in Mike's conclusions, of course)? Also, while I am not perfectly informed about this, I really wouldn't miss the information which you said now. So, please, may this process be a little bit more transparent?
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Just to make clear: CC and FSF talk frequently, and the Software Freedom Law center is involved in those discussion as well, as are Mike Godwin, me, Erik Möller, etc.
So, this whole discussion seems to me to be pretty much moot.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Milos Rancic wrote:
May you inform us about at least some of your conclusions (I am particularly interested in Mike's conclusions, of course)? Also, while I am not perfectly informed about this, I really wouldn't miss the information which you said now. So, please, may this process be a little bit more transparent?
I am not sure what I can tell you. What do you want to know?
It is not possible to tell you blow by blow the state of complex discussions. It's the hands of lawyers who are working very thoughtfully about how to deal with complex issues. Discussions have been going on for years, and things are very close to resolution.
There was a public comment process, did you take part in it?
--Jimbo
On 4/5/08, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
May you inform us about at least some of your conclusions (I am particularly interested in Mike's conclusions, of course)? Also, while I am not perfectly informed about this, I really wouldn't miss the information which you said now. So, please, may this process be a little bit more transparent?
I am not sure what I can tell you. What do you want to know?
It is not possible to tell you blow by blow the state of complex discussions. It's the hands of lawyers who are working very thoughtfully about how to deal with complex issues. Discussions have been going on for years, and things are very close to resolution.
I'm doubtless being extremely dense here, but can someone say what practical difference, actual or potential, any of this makes to Wikipedia?
Sarah
On 06/04/2008, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I'm doubtless being extremely dense here, but can someone say what practical difference, actual or potential, any of this makes to Wikipedia?
Sarah
1)it gives us a degree of security. An issue with CC in the past is that they have had a tenancy to jump on bandwagons which made the future path of their licenses tricky to predict.
2)the free cultural works stuff is another step towards the grand unified free content license which would be useful to us.
3)section 3 looks like a step towards strong copyleft which has both pluses (reuses have to release more stuff under free licenses) and minuses (less incidental reuse and will bring the Free art license issue to a head).
geni wrote:
1)it gives us a degree of security. An issue with CC in the past is that they have had a tenancy to jump on bandwagons which made the future path of their licenses tricky to predict.
I do not agree. I am a board member of CC, and have seen the slow deliberative process that goes on there. The board is full of good people committed to license predictability and stability. The future of CC licenses is not difficult to predict.
2)the free cultural works stuff is another step towards the grand unified free content license which would be useful to us.
3)section 3 looks like a step towards strong copyleft which has both pluses (reuses have to release more stuff under free licenses) and minuses (less incidental reuse and will bring the Free art license issue to a head).
*nod*
--Jimbo
On 06/04/2008, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
geni wrote:
1)it gives us a degree of security. An issue with CC in the past is that they have had a tenancy to jump on bandwagons which made the future path of their licenses tricky to predict.
I do not agree. I am a board member of CC, and have seen the slow deliberative process that goes on there. The board is full of good people committed to license predictability and stability. The future of CC licenses is not difficult to predict.
The CC-DN license? The moral rights clause? These were not predicable.
The risk (well one of them) with any third partly license is that the people who are managing it will try and use it to drive an agenda (see some of the fuss over GPL3). With the FSF it has historically been pretty clear what that agenda is. Up until now CC has been less predictable.
Of course we now have to keep an eye on the freedomdefined mob but that was already the case.
On Sunday 06 April 2008 01:13:01 SlimVirgin wrote:
On 4/5/08, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
May you inform us about at least some of your conclusions (I am particularly interested in Mike's conclusions, of course)? Also, while I am not perfectly informed about this, I really wouldn't miss the information which you said now. So, please, may this process be a little bit more transparent?
I am not sure what I can tell you. What do you want to know?
It is not possible to tell you blow by blow the state of complex discussions. It's the hands of lawyers who are working very thoughtfully about how to deal with complex issues. Discussions have been going on for years, and things are very close to resolution.
I'm doubtless being extremely dense here, but can someone say what practical difference, actual or potential, any of this makes to Wikipedia?
If a future version of GFDL is CC compatible, Wikipedia could use texts released under CC-BY-SA licenses. Also, without the requirement of printing the GFDL wit the work and enumerating the authors and changes, Wikipedia content could be reused more easily outside of Wikipedia.
The whole process was far from transparent and you are continuing with writing rationalizations for keeping the process nontransparent. Changing the license is not only a matter of the Board, but it is a matter of all contributors.
I don't remember that I've seen any professional analysis of what we are getting and what we are losing by switching from one to another license. There were only amateur arguing (including your, Erik's, mine, Gregory's, Gerard's...) pro and contra one or another license. (If there was such analysis, please, give me a link.)
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
May you inform us about at least some of your conclusions (I am particularly interested in Mike's conclusions, of course)? Also, while I am not perfectly informed about this, I really wouldn't miss the information which you said now. So, please, may this process be a little bit more transparent?
I am not sure what I can tell you. What do you want to know?
It is not possible to tell you blow by blow the state of complex discussions. It's the hands of lawyers who are working very thoughtfully about how to deal with complex issues. Discussions have been going on for years, and things are very close to resolution.
There was a public comment process, did you take part in it?
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Why do you think particularly Erik is an amateur at this? I would say that one of the reasons why he was offered the job of deputy director of the WMF is because of his efforts in this field. Given that Jimmy is a board member of the CC and a board member of the WMF, I would not qualify him as just an amateur either. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
The whole process was far from transparent and you are continuing with writing rationalizations for keeping the process nontransparent. Changing the license is not only a matter of the Board, but it is a matter of all contributors.
I don't remember that I've seen any professional analysis of what we are getting and what we are losing by switching from one to another license. There were only amateur arguing (including your, Erik's, mine, Gregory's, Gerard's...) pro and contra one or another license. (If there was such analysis, please, give me a link.)
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
May you inform us about at least some of your conclusions (I am particularly interested in Mike's conclusions, of course)? Also,
while
I am not perfectly informed about this, I really wouldn't miss the information which you said now. So, please, may this process be a little bit more transparent?
I am not sure what I can tell you. What do you want to know?
It is not possible to tell you blow by blow the state of complex discussions. It's the hands of lawyers who are working very thoughtfully about how to deal with complex issues. Discussions have been going on for years, and things are very close to resolution.
There was a public comment process, did you take part in it?
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
He is not a lawyer. Being deeply involved and understanding social processes don't qualify one person to be a lawyer who is able to analyze possible judicial consequences of one legal act, like license is.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Why do you think particularly Erik is an amateur at this? I would say that one of the reasons why he was offered the job of deputy director of the WMF is because of his efforts in this field. Given that Jimmy is a board member of the CC and a board member of the WMF, I would not qualify him as just an amateur either. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
The whole process was far from transparent and you are continuing with writing rationalizations for keeping the process nontransparent. Changing the license is not only a matter of the Board, but it is a matter of all contributors.
I don't remember that I've seen any professional analysis of what we are getting and what we are losing by switching from one to another license. There were only amateur arguing (including your, Erik's, mine, Gregory's, Gerard's...) pro and contra one or another license. (If there was such analysis, please, give me a link.)
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
May you inform us about at least some of your conclusions (I am particularly interested in Mike's conclusions, of course)? Also,
while
I am not perfectly informed about this, I really wouldn't miss the information which you said now. So, please, may this process be a little bit more transparent?
I am not sure what I can tell you. What do you want to know?
It is not possible to tell you blow by blow the state of complex discussions. It's the hands of lawyers who are working very thoughtfully about how to deal with complex issues. Discussions have been going on for years, and things are very close to resolution.
There was a public comment process, did you take part in it?
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, So everyone but a lawyer specialised in copyright law is an amateur? I always learned that the opposite of an amateur is a professional. Certainly Erik is one at that. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
He is not a lawyer. Being deeply involved and understanding social processes don't qualify one person to be a lawyer who is able to analyze possible judicial consequences of one legal act, like license is.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Why do you think particularly Erik is an amateur at this? I would say
that
one of the reasons why he was offered the job of deputy director of the
WMF
is because of his efforts in this field. Given that Jimmy is a board
member
of the CC and a board member of the WMF, I would not qualify him as
just an
amateur either. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
The whole process was far from transparent and you are continuing
with
writing rationalizations for keeping the process nontransparent. Changing the license is not only a matter of the Board, but it is a matter of all contributors.
I don't remember that I've seen any professional analysis of what we are getting and what we are losing by switching from one to another license. There were only amateur arguing (including your, Erik's, mine, Gregory's, Gerard's...) pro and contra one or another license. (If there was such analysis, please, give me a link.)
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com
wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
May you inform us about at least some of your conclusions (I am particularly interested in Mike's conclusions, of course)? Also,
while
I am not perfectly informed about this, I really wouldn't miss
the
information which you said now. So, please, may this process be
a
little bit more transparent?
I am not sure what I can tell you. What do you want to know?
It is not possible to tell you blow by blow the state of complex discussions. It's the hands of lawyers who are working very thoughtfully about how to deal with complex issues. Discussions
have
been going on for years, and things are very close to resolution.
There was a public comment process, did you take part in it?
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Unlike in the case of GNU licenses, there are different interpretations of CC licenses made by lawyers from different jurisdictions inside of USA. Unfortunately, no of those interpretations cover Florida or California law explicitly.
And now a little bit about Erik's life and work ;) I know how deeply Erik is involved in the free culture matters. Maybe he even has a clear picture of all legal consequences, according to his talks with different lawyers. But, I am not talking here about his possibility to process data and to make right decisions.
Switching from one license to another is not only a matter of the Board and the Office, but a matter of all contributors to Wikimedia projects. So, I don't want to hear the product of Erik's procession of data, I want to hear (not via private email, but here!) a professional analysis of the legal consequences, especially applied for us, which means -- the implications related to Florida and California judicial systems.
Trusting or not trusting to someone's abilities is one thing. A very opposite thing is keeping things transparent.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So everyone but a lawyer specialised in copyright law is an amateur? I always learned that the opposite of an amateur is a professional. Certainly Erik is one at that. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
He is not a lawyer. Being deeply involved and understanding social processes don't qualify one person to be a lawyer who is able to analyze possible judicial consequences of one legal act, like license is.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Why do you think particularly Erik is an amateur at this? I would say
that
one of the reasons why he was offered the job of deputy director of the
WMF
is because of his efforts in this field. Given that Jimmy is a board
member
of the CC and a board member of the WMF, I would not qualify him as
just an
amateur either. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
The whole process was far from transparent and you are continuing
with
writing rationalizations for keeping the process nontransparent. Changing the license is not only a matter of the Board, but it is a matter of all contributors.
I don't remember that I've seen any professional analysis of what we are getting and what we are losing by switching from one to another license. There were only amateur arguing (including your, Erik's, mine, Gregory's, Gerard's...) pro and contra one or another license. (If there was such analysis, please, give me a link.)
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com
wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
May you inform us about at least some of your conclusions (I am particularly interested in Mike's conclusions, of course)? Also,
while
I am not perfectly informed about this, I really wouldn't miss
the
information which you said now. So, please, may this process be
a
little bit more transparent?
I am not sure what I can tell you. What do you want to know?
It is not possible to tell you blow by blow the state of complex discussions. It's the hands of lawyers who are working very thoughtfully about how to deal with complex issues. Discussions
have
been going on for years, and things are very close to resolution.
There was a public comment process, did you take part in it?
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, A lawyer argues the case according to the requirements of his paymaster. It is exactly for this reason that different lawyers come with different answers to the same question. This means that a legal opinion of one lawyer is very much within reason worth the money that is paid for it and the money available to argue the point.
With a blind trust in lawyers, why would you think our community needs to form an opinion about this? In the end it is about power and trust. I trust people like Jimmy, Erik and Mike to do wel for usl. I feel no need to second guess them. My politics is about creating knowledge that is freely available and as such I positively hate all the licenses that restrict me alike.
We all agree that the GFDL was not intended for use cases like Wikipedia and we suffer for it. Now let us PLEASE harmonise the CC-by-sa and the GFDL in order to have our practices be more in line with the letter of the license. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Unlike in the case of GNU licenses, there are different interpretations of CC licenses made by lawyers from different jurisdictions inside of USA. Unfortunately, no of those interpretations cover Florida or California law explicitly.
And now a little bit about Erik's life and work ;) I know how deeply Erik is involved in the free culture matters. Maybe he even has a clear picture of all legal consequences, according to his talks with different lawyers. But, I am not talking here about his possibility to process data and to make right decisions.
Switching from one license to another is not only a matter of the Board and the Office, but a matter of all contributors to Wikimedia projects. So, I don't want to hear the product of Erik's procession of data, I want to hear (not via private email, but here!) a professional analysis of the legal consequences, especially applied for us, which means -- the implications related to Florida and California judicial systems.
Trusting or not trusting to someone's abilities is one thing. A very opposite thing is keeping things transparent.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So everyone but a lawyer specialised in copyright law is an amateur? I always learned that the opposite of an amateur is a professional.
Certainly
Erik is one at that. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
He is not a lawyer. Being deeply involved and understanding social processes don't qualify one person to be a lawyer who is able to analyze possible judicial consequences of one legal act, like license is.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Why do you think particularly Erik is an amateur at this? I would
say
that
one of the reasons why he was offered the job of deputy director
of the
WMF
is because of his efforts in this field. Given that Jimmy is a
board
member
of the CC and a board member of the WMF, I would not qualify him
as
just an
amateur either. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
The whole process was far from transparent and you are
continuing
with
writing rationalizations for keeping the process nontransparent. Changing the license is not only a matter of the Board, but it
is a
matter of all contributors.
I don't remember that I've seen any professional analysis of
what we
are getting and what we are losing by switching from one to
another
license. There were only amateur arguing (including your,
Erik's,
mine, Gregory's, Gerard's...) pro and contra one or another
license.
(If there was such analysis, please, give me a link.)
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com
wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote: > May you inform us about at least some of your conclusions
(I am
> particularly interested in Mike's conclusions, of course)?
Also,
while
> I am not perfectly informed about this, I really wouldn't
miss
the
> information which you said now. So, please, may this
process be
a
> little bit more transparent?
I am not sure what I can tell you. What do you want to know?
It is not possible to tell you blow by blow the state of
complex
discussions. It's the hands of lawyers who are working very thoughtfully about how to deal with complex issues.
Discussions
have
been going on for years, and things are very close to
resolution.
There was a public comment process, did you take part in it?
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
A lawyer argues the case according to the requirements of his paymaster. It is exactly for this reason that different lawyers come with different answers to the same question. This means that a legal opinion of one lawyer is very much within reason worth the money that is paid for it and the money available to argue the point.
So, I asked for analysis from *our* lawyer (i.e. Mike) and from lawyers of a couple of institutions which may be considered as fairly independent. (As well as I am open for other suggestions.)
With a blind trust in lawyers, why would you think our community needs to form an opinion about this? In the end it is about power and trust. I trust people like Jimmy, Erik and Mike to do wel for usl. I feel no need to second guess them. My politics is about creating knowledge that is freely available and as such I positively hate all the licenses that restrict me alike.
I said previously a couple of times two very simple statements: - Trusting to someone is one thing, keeping the process transparent is another. - From your list, I already asked for Mike's analysis.
I didn't hear would we stay at CC-BY-SA 3.5/4.0 forever or we would have a possibility to switch to some newer license. If yes, how would we do that?
I didn't hear an explanation what are our options if something goes wrong. Would we have a possibility to switch to another license if we are not content with some future version of CC-BY-SA.
We all agree that the GFDL was not intended for use cases like Wikipedia and we suffer for it. Now let us PLEASE harmonise the CC-by-sa and the GFDL in order to have our practices be more in line with the letter of the license. Thanks,
I agree with you and I would like to see those two licenses harmonized. However, I don't like the fact that I've got all important informations in private talks. This is not only a matter of me (or whoever personally, or whichever group alone), but a matter of all contributors to Wikimedian projects.
On 4/6/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't hear would we stay at CC-BY-SA 3.5/4.0 forever or we would have a possibility to switch to some newer license. If yes, how would we do that?
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.
I didn't hear an explanation what are our options if something goes wrong. Would we have a possibility to switch to another license if we are not content with some future version of CC-BY-SA.
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.).
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.
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.
Milos Rancic wrote:
Unlike in the case of GNU licenses, there are different interpretations of CC licenses made by lawyers from different jurisdictions inside of USA. Unfortunately, no of those interpretations cover Florida or California law explicitly.
In the interests of keeping things simple, it's important to point out that in most respects copyright in the United States is a matter of Federal law.
Ec
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
We are continuing our conversations about that particular aspect, and my personal hope is that we will figure out a way to clearly state through the license that adaptations such as a picture embedded into a newspaper article trigger the share-alike clause, i.e. the newspaper article would be CC-BY-SA licensed. (Or, as I would argue, in those particular cases, any other DFCW compliant license.)
As somewhat of a spokesman for this, I hope you'll be more careful with your wording. A newspaper article is only CC-BY-SA licensed if the copyright owner(s) of the work release(s) the article under CC-BY-SA.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
We are continuing our conversations about that particular aspect, and my personal hope is that we will figure out a way to clearly state through the license that adaptations such as a picture embedded into a newspaper article trigger the share-alike clause, i.e. the newspaper article would be CC-BY-SA licensed. (Or, as I would argue, in those particular cases, any other DFCW compliant license.)
Have you at all considered the practical effect of such a redefinition?
The day such a redefinition is passed will not be the day that the world media suddenly shifts over to free content all-of-a-sudden in glorious revolution.
No, that will be the day when they stop using free-licensed photos at all.
Thanks, Pharos
On 06/04/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
We are continuing our conversations about that particular aspect, and my personal hope is that we will figure out a way to clearly state through the license that adaptations such as a picture embedded into a newspaper article trigger the share-alike clause, i.e. the newspaper article would be CC-BY-SA licensed. (Or, as I would argue, in those particular cases, any other DFCW compliant license.)
Have you at all considered the practical effect of such a redefinition?
The day such a redefinition is passed will not be the day that the world media suddenly shifts over to free content all-of-a-sudden in glorious revolution.
No, that will be the day when they stop using free-licensed photos at all.
Thanks,
Pharos
In the short term yes. But then Microsoft don't use gnu based stuff and Linux still ticks over. The argument is that incidental use of free images in non free text doesn't gain us anything anyway. However by using strong copyleft we can perhaps get free text releases from the likes of university and school newspapers. Perhaps society magazines rather than trying to target the top end and not getting much to show for it.
Of course there is a new scientist article under a free license somewhere. It is under a free license so they could include a copy of a recipe for free cola.
Hoi, When you insist on the enforcement of "share alike" in the strongest possible way, you prevent mashing and collaboration. You prevent the use of material in academic papers. In this way the medicine that are free and open licenses is as bad as what it is to cure; restrictive licenses and restrictive practices.
Obviously it is a choice, it may even be your choice but you *are *replacing restrictive practices with restrictive practices.. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:43 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/04/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org
wrote:
We are continuing our conversations about that particular aspect, and my personal hope is that we will figure out a way to clearly state through the license that adaptations such as a picture embedded into
a
newspaper article trigger the share-alike clause, i.e. the newspaper article would be CC-BY-SA licensed. (Or, as I would argue, in those particular cases, any other DFCW compliant license.)
Have you at all considered the practical effect of such a redefinition?
The day such a redefinition is passed will not be the day that the world media suddenly shifts over to free content all-of-a-sudden in glorious revolution.
No, that will be the day when they stop using free-licensed photos at
all.
Thanks,
Pharos
In the short term yes. But then Microsoft don't use gnu based stuff and Linux still ticks over. The argument is that incidental use of free images in non free text doesn't gain us anything anyway. However by using strong copyleft we can perhaps get free text releases from the likes of university and school newspapers. Perhaps society magazines rather than trying to target the top end and not getting much to show for it.
Of course there is a new scientist article under a free license somewhere. It is under a free license so they could include a copy of a recipe for free cola.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 06/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When you insist on the enforcement of "share alike" in the strongest possible way, you prevent mashing and collaboration.
You prevent no such thing. You are free to colaberate as long as you only use free material.
You prevent the use of material in academic papers.
Nope. Academic papers could be released under free licenses (there is currently an ongoing argument over the matter.
In this way the medicine that are free and open licenses is as bad as what it is to cure; restrictive licenses and restrictive practices.
CC-BY is exists if you don't want SA.
Obviously it is a choice, it may even be your choice but you *are *replacing restrictive practices with restrictive practices..
The idea is that by using strong copy left you are saying that if you want to play our game you play by our rules.
Hoi, Absolutely, you are completely right that when using "share alike" licensed material you have to play by its rules. No mistake there. Let there also be no mistake that this *is *a restrictive practice and where you state that there is an ongoing argument about the use in academic papers, you implicitly agree that the use of "share alike" material is prevented for many academic papers.
I do know about the existence of CC-by. I am grateful that there is a lot of material that cannot be copyrighted anyway. I am equally grateful that this is the kind of material that has most of my interest.
PS by saying "our rules" you either intentionally exclude or intentionally include. When we discuss the merits of licenses there is no need for either.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:09 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When you insist on the enforcement of "share alike" in the strongest possible way, you prevent mashing and collaboration.
You prevent no such thing. You are free to colaberate as long as you only use free material.
You prevent the use of material in academic papers.
Nope. Academic papers could be released under free licenses (there is currently an ongoing argument over the matter.
In this way the medicine that are free and open licenses is as bad as what it is to cure; restrictive licenses and restrictive practices.
CC-BY is exists if you don't want SA.
Obviously it is a choice, it may even be your choice but you *are
*replacing
restrictive practices with restrictive practices..
The idea is that by using strong copy left you are saying that if you want to play our game you play by our rules.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 06/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Absolutely, you are completely right that when using "share alike" licensed material you have to play by its rules. No mistake there. Let there also be no mistake that this *is *a restrictive practice and where you state that there is an ongoing argument about the use in academic papers, you implicitly agree that the use of "share alike" material is prevented for many academic papers.
Yes but by the journal publishers. Weak copyleft will make little difference in this case. See
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726473.300-physicists-slam-publisher...
I do know about the existence of CC-by. I am grateful that there is a lot of material that cannot be copyrighted anyway. I am equally grateful that this is the kind of material that has most of my interest.
PS by saying "our rules" you either intentionally exclude or intentionally include. When we discuss the merits of licenses there is no need for either.
Getty and the RIAA play by one set of rules and requires anyone using their content to play by those rules. Free software plays by a different set of rules and requires everyone using that code to play by that set of rules.
Geni, It is fine that you do not like the practices of the RIAA of the Getty (what Getty :) ) I am with you on this one. This does however not change the argument that any and all "share alike" licenses are restrictive in nature. It does not change the fact that you cannot use "share alike" material in academic papers.
You will also have to agree with me that material that is licensed under a Free/Open license cannot be used together with material licensed under another Free/Open license in a round trip way. Much information needs to be and is recreated because of the curse of incompatible licenses. It is the end-user that suffers. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:46 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Absolutely, you are completely right that when using "share alike"
licensed
material you have to play by its rules. No mistake there. Let there
also be
no mistake that this *is *a restrictive practice and where you state
that
there is an ongoing argument about the use in academic papers, you implicitly agree that the use of "share alike" material is prevented
for
many academic papers.
Yes but by the journal publishers. Weak copyleft will make little difference in this case. See
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726473.300-physicists-slam-publisher...
I do know about the existence of CC-by. I am grateful that there is a
lot of
material that cannot be copyrighted anyway. I am equally grateful that
this
is the kind of material that has most of my interest.
PS by saying "our rules" you either intentionally exclude or
intentionally
include. When we discuss the merits of licenses there is no need for
either.
Getty and the RIAA play by one set of rules and requires anyone using their content to play by those rules. Free software plays by a different set of rules and requires everyone using that code to play by that set of rules.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 06/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, It is fine that you do not like the practices of the RIAA of the Getty (what Getty :) ) I am with you on this one. This does however not change the argument that any and all "share alike" licenses are restrictive in nature.
Technically so is anything not in the public domain in a jurisdiction without moral rights.
It does not change the fact that you cannot use "share alike" material in academic papers.
That is not universally the case.
You will also have to agree with me that material that is licensed under a Free/Open license cannot be used together with material licensed under another Free/Open license in a round trip way. Much information needs to be and is recreated because of the curse of incompatible licenses. It is the end-user that suffers. Thanks,
The statement by CC is part of the effort to solve this problem.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 6:46 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Getty and the RIAA play by one set of rules and requires anyone using their content to play by those rules. Free software plays by a different set of rules and requires everyone using that code to play by that set of rules.
At least free software plays by its own rules, though.
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 3:09 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
<nope> > You prevent the use of > material in academic papers.
Nope. Academic papers could be released under free licenses (there is currently an ongoing argument over the matter.
Also, the Public Library of Science [1], perhaps the most significant of the open access publishers [2], adopted CC-BY for all their journals. In addition, my university recently dedicated a special pot of funds to cover page charges for authors who would like to publish in open access journals. In general, I think most academics view open access as a good thing. The free content movement is definitely compatible with academic publishing though the nature of that publishing may change some.
-Robert Rohde
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Library_of_Science [2] - http://www.doaj.org/
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When you insist on the enforcement of "share alike" in the strongest possible way, you prevent mashing and collaboration. You prevent the use of material in academic papers. In this way the medicine that are free and open licenses is as bad as what it is to cure; restrictive licenses and restrictive practices.
Obviously it is a choice, it may even be your choice but you *are *replacing restrictive practices with restrictive practices.. Thanks, GerardM
Yeah, and we earn a lot of good will from journalists because they are grateful that Wikimedia offers free photos, and this introduces them to the concept of free content as well.
I talked with a young journalist at one of our events in New York this Friday, and this was very much a reason she appreciated Wikimedia, because the wonder of free content helps her everyday in her job.
Imagine the potential attitude of a journalist like that, used to interacting with free content on a regular basis, when she has a mature journalism career, and maybe a position of editorial authority in a few years.
Now imagine us telling her free content is over for her, that Wikimedia is no longer interested in helping journalists unless they fulfill our strict ideological requirements.
Then her experience with free content comes to a sudden stop, and the whole concept seems like a brief fad that is no longer relevant to her carreer. Do you think she will have the same positive attitude toward Wikimedia and free content when she becomes an editor then?
Thanks, Pharos
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:43 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/04/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org
wrote:
We are continuing our conversations about that particular aspect, and my personal hope is that we will figure out a way to clearly state through the license that adaptations such as a picture embedded into
a
newspaper article trigger the share-alike clause, i.e. the newspaper article would be CC-BY-SA licensed. (Or, as I would argue, in those particular cases, any other DFCW compliant license.)
Have you at all considered the practical effect of such a redefinition?
The day such a redefinition is passed will not be the day that the world media suddenly shifts over to free content all-of-a-sudden in glorious revolution.
No, that will be the day when they stop using free-licensed photos at
all.
Thanks,
Pharos
In the short term yes. But then Microsoft don't use gnu based stuff and Linux still ticks over. The argument is that incidental use of free images in non free text doesn't gain us anything anyway. However by using strong copyleft we can perhaps get free text releases from the likes of university and school newspapers. Perhaps society magazines rather than trying to target the top end and not getting much to show for it.
Of course there is a new scientist article under a free license somewhere. It is under a free license so they could include a copy of a recipe for free cola.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 06/04/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When you insist on the enforcement of "share alike" in the strongest possible way, you prevent mashing and collaboration. You prevent the use of material in academic papers. In this way the medicine that are free and open licenses is as bad as what it is to cure; restrictive licenses and restrictive practices.
Obviously it is a choice, it may even be your choice but you *are *replacing restrictive practices with restrictive practices.. Thanks, GerardM
Yeah, and we earn a lot of good will from journalists because they are grateful that Wikimedia offers free photos, and this introduces them to the concept of free content as well.
No it introduces them to the idea that there is content they don't have to pay for. it doesn't appear to be introducing them to the wider free concepts.
I talked with a young journalist at one of our events in New York this Friday, and this was very much a reason she appreciated Wikimedia, because the wonder of free content helps her everyday in her job.
Imagine the potential attitude of a journalist like that, used to interacting with free content on a regular basis, when she has a mature journalism career, and maybe a position of editorial authority in a few years.
So far the evidence would suggest that in the majority of cases it has no impact whatsoever. There is a clear line between free content consumers and free content creators.
Now imagine us telling her free content is over for her, that Wikimedia is no longer interested in helping journalists unless they fulfill our strict ideological requirements.
Strict? Not remotely. See
http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/LicenseInfo.aspx
And you pay for that.
Then her experience with free content comes to a sudden stop, and the whole concept seems like a brief fad that is no longer relevant to her carreer. Do you think she will have the same positive attitude toward Wikimedia and free content when she becomes an editor then?
Positive attitudes butter no parsnips. In fact you are suggesting her attitude would be that free content is something you take from and don't give to which isn't very helpful for us.
BTW we currently have an alexa rank about 50 places higher than the BBC.
On 07/04/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
I talked with a young journalist at one of our events in New York this Friday, and this was very much a reason she appreciated Wikimedia, because the wonder of free content helps her everyday in her job.
Imagine the potential attitude of a journalist like that, used to interacting with free content on a regular basis, when she has a mature journalism career, and maybe a position of editorial authority in a few years.
Now imagine us telling her free content is over for her, that Wikimedia is no longer interested in helping journalists unless they fulfill our strict ideological requirements.
Then her experience with free content comes to a sudden stop, and the whole concept seems like a brief fad that is no longer relevant to her carreer. Do you think she will have the same positive attitude toward Wikimedia and free content when she becomes an editor then?
CC-BY is not going anywhere. Lots of people release content under this license and will continue to do so. Not to mention public domain releases.
In fact, for contributors who *don't* want a "strong interpretation" of sharealike to apply to their work, if CC-BY-SA is clarified to have this intent, they may switch to make their work available under CC-BY.
cheers Brianna
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/04/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
I talked with a young journalist at one of our events in New York this Friday, and this was very much a reason she appreciated Wikimedia, because the wonder of free content helps her everyday in her job.
Imagine the potential attitude of a journalist like that, used to interacting with free content on a regular basis, when she has a mature journalism career, and maybe a position of editorial authority in a few years.
Now imagine us telling her free content is over for her, that Wikimedia is no longer interested in helping journalists unless they fulfill our strict ideological requirements.
Then her experience with free content comes to a sudden stop, and the whole concept seems like a brief fad that is no longer relevant to her carreer. Do you think she will have the same positive attitude toward Wikimedia and free content when she becomes an editor then?
CC-BY is not going anywhere. Lots of people release content under this license and will continue to do so. Not to mention public domain releases.
In fact, for contributors who *don't* want a "strong interpretation" of sharealike to apply to their work, if CC-BY-SA is clarified to have this intent, they may switch to make their work available under CC-BY.
I dislike CC-BY for the same reason that others dislike CC-BY. If I take a photograph, I want my photograph (and its modifications) to remain free.
What seems wrong to me is the idea that we require a "purity test" for re-users, so that I can demand the book that my photograph is published in is also free. Now, I think it's a morally right thing for books to be free. But maybe I have other moral opinions too.
Maybe I think all books should be free, and refuse my photographs to any publisher that has -any- non-free books in its catalog.
Or maybe I think printing presses should all have good working conditions for employees, and would refuse my photographs to publishers that go against these principles.
These are all ideals that many of us support, but how are they related to my copyright on my photograph?
And how does tying in purity tests encourage re-use in the real world?
The perfect, we must recognize, can very much be the enemy of the good.
Thanks, Pharos
Er, I believe if your photo is under CC-BY it will remain free no matter what. Other's derivatives may not, but YOUR photo will remain free.
-Dan On Apr 6, 2008, at 10:53 PM, Pharos wrote:
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/04/2008, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
I dislike CC-BY for the same reason that others dislike CC-BY. If I take a photograph, I want my photograph (and its modifications) to remain free.
What seems wrong to me is the idea that we require a "purity test" for re-users, so that I can demand the book that my photograph is published in is also free. Now, I think it's a morally right thing for books to be free. But maybe I have other moral opinions too.
Maybe I think all books should be free, and refuse my photographs to any publisher that has -any- non-free books in its catalog.
Or maybe I think printing presses should all have good working conditions for employees, and would refuse my photographs to publishers that go against these principles.
These are all ideals that many of us support, but how are they related to my copyright on my photograph?
And how does tying in purity tests encourage re-use in the real world?
The perfect, we must recognize, can very much be the enemy of the good.
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Er, I believe if your photo is under CC-BY it will remain free no matter what. Other's derivatives may not, but YOUR photo will remain free.
Of course. Like I said, "If I take a photograph, I want my photograph (and its modifications) to remain free."
I don't want someone to modify it and put a non-free copyright on the derivative of my photograph.
But I don't believe in purity tests either, that seek to dictate the copyright status of work I had no hand in, and whose only connection to my photograph is that they might appear on the same page.
Thanks, Pharos
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
I don't want someone to modify it and put a non-free copyright on the derivative of my photograph.
But I don't believe in purity tests either, that seek to dictate the copyright status of work I had no hand in, and whose only connection to my photograph is that they might appear on the same page.
Work that you had no hand in cannot be a derivative of your work, so there's really no question about that. However, if your photograph appears in a newspaper article, then you *did* have a hand in that newspaper article.
Maybe this is a matter of semantics, but if I look at a newspaper I'd say it generally consists of articles which have pictures in them. I wouldn't say that it has articles and pictures which just happen to appear on the same page.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org