On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 8:42 AM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: 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

On 05/04/2008, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote: No thank you we do not need any further increase in the number of licenses floating around The FSF produced the GFDL. I think that disqualifies then from telling anyone else how to write a free content license. We get told about the new developments. There just are not very many of them. -- geni

On 05/04/2008, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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? The GPL? Yes they have shown an ability to write some of the better free software 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. 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. 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 Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 7:23 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

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.

Milos Rancic wrote: 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 06/04/2008, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> 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. 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

On 06/04/2008, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: 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. -- geni

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(a)wikia.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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.) 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. 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 Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: 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 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. 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.

On 06/04/2008, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

On 06/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: You prevent no such thing. You are free to colaberate as long as you only use free material. Nope. Academic papers could be released under free licenses (there is currently an ongoing argument over the matter. CC-BY is exists if you don't want SA. 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

On 06/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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-publishe… 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

On 06/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: Technically so is anything not in the public domain in a jurisdiction without moral rights. That is not universally the case. The statement by CC is part of the effort to solve this problem. -- geni

On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 3:09 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 06/04/2008, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. 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. Strict? Not remotely. See http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/LicenseInfo.aspx And you pay for that. 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. -- geni

On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)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

On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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