[Foundation-l] Wikiversity license - Wikimedia-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

[Foundation-l] Wikiversity license

[Foundation-l] Notice from...

[Foundation-l] board candidacies

Elisabeth Bauer

15 Aug 2006 15 Aug '06

6:33 p.m.

There might be already a discussion about this somewhere, dunno: Before wikiversity really starts, it might make sense to think about the license. There could be better choices than GFDL for such a project. greetings, elian

Reply

Show replies by date

James Hare

15 Aug 15 Aug

7:17 p.m.

GFDL is really the best choice because everyone other one of our Wikimedia project does it (except Wikinews). On 8/15/06, Elisabeth Bauer <elian(a)djini.de> wrote:

There might be already a discussion about this somewhere, dunno: Before wikiversity really starts, it might make sense to think about the license. There could be better choices than GFDL for such a project. greetings, elian _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply

Amgine

7:30 p.m.

On 15-Aug-06, at 12:17 PM, James Hare wrote:

GFDL is really the best choice because everyone other one of our Wikimedia project does it (except Wikinews). On 8/15/06, Elisabeth Bauer <elian(a)djini.de> wrote: > > There might be already a discussion about this somewhere, dunno: > > Before wikiversity really starts, it might make sense to think > about the > license. There could be better choices than GFDL for such a project. > > greetings, > elian

"I now understand why the GFDL is a bad license." Eben Moglen, Wikimania 2006

Reply

Erik Moeller

7:41 p.m.

On 8/15/06, Amgine <amgine(a)saewyc.net> wrote:

"I now understand why the GFDL is a bad license." Eben Moglen, Wikimania 2006

Which doesn't mean that it cannot be improved. There's a real effort underway to do so. I'm not sure GFDL is the best license for Wikiversity. It depends on the amount of content mixing with other projects that is desired. I suspect that imports from other projects will be likely to create educational materials of different kinds, such as instructional devices embedding Wikipedia articles. From that perspective, the compatibility advantage of GFDL could be a compelling argument. I do agree that the Wikiversity community should discuss the issue, in a similar way it was discussed on Wikinews after the project was set up. Erik

Reply

Robert Scott Horning

7:58 p.m.

Erik Moeller wrote:

On 8/15/06, Amgine <amgine(a)saewyc.net> wrote:

"I now understand why the GFDL is a bad license." Eben Moglen, Wikimania 2006

Which doesn't mean that it cannot be improved. There's a real effort underway to do so. I'm not sure GFDL is the best license for Wikiversity. It depends on the amount of content mixing with other projects that is desired. I suspect that imports from other projects will be likely to create educational materials of different kinds, such as instructional devices embedding Wikipedia articles. From that perspective, the compatibility advantage of GFDL could be a compelling argument. I do agree that the Wikiversity community should discuss the issue, in a similar way it was discussed on Wikinews after the project was set up. Erik

I will say that by its nature Wikiversity is going to be mixing content from all of the Wikimedia projects (including presumably Wikinews as well at some point). In this regard, I would suspect that Wikiversity should remain GFDL for this reason alone. The other huge issue is that most of the Wikiversity content was started on Wikibooks under the GFDL, and by abandoning the GFDL it is also abandoning all of the effort that went into Wikiversity on Wikibooks. That is a considerable amount of content and not something to be discarded lightly. This isn't like Wikinews that didn't have substantial content already developed prior to its creation. This is, however, one reason why I think the license issue on the incubator ought to be discussed, as going from the GFDL to another license can't be done. At the very least the incubator ought to be dual-licensed or have some more thought put into it in that regard. -- Robert Scott Horning

Reply

George Herbert

8:03 p.m.

On 8/15/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:

Erik Moeller wrote:

On 8/15/06, Amgine <amgine(a)saewyc.net> wrote:

"I now understand why the GFDL is a bad license." Eben Moglen, Wikimania 2006

Which doesn't mean that it cannot be improved. There's a real effort underway to do so. I'm not sure GFDL is the best license for Wikiversity. It depends on the amount of content mixing with other projects that is desired. I suspect that imports from other projects will be likely to create educational materials of different kinds, such as instructional devices embedding Wikipedia articles. From that perspective, the compatibility advantage of GFDL could be a compelling argument. I do agree that the Wikiversity community should discuss the issue, in a similar way it was discussed on Wikinews after the project was set up. Erik

I will say that by its nature Wikiversity is going to be mixing content from all of the Wikimedia projects (including presumably Wikinews as well at some point). In this regard, I would suspect that Wikiversity should remain GFDL for this reason alone. The other huge issue is that most of the Wikiversity content was started on Wikibooks under the GFDL, and by abandoning the GFDL it is also abandoning all of the effort that went into Wikiversity on Wikibooks. That is a considerable amount of content and not something to be discarded lightly. This isn't like Wikinews that didn't have substantial content already developed prior to its creation. This is, however, one reason why I think the license issue on the incubator ought to be discussed, as going from the GFDL to another license can't be done. At the very least the incubator ought to be dual-licensed or have some more thought put into it in that regard. -- Robert Scott Horning _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I think that the number of contributors to content of Wikiversity is low enough that a large portion of it may be able to be released under another license. All doing that requires is getting affirmative assent of all the contributors to a page / article / book / whatever that they are ok with a new license. The time to start doing that is now, however. And the question of what other license to use is a good one... if one hasn't been selected soon, it will be practically too late. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Reply

Robert Scott Horning

8:11 p.m.

George Herbert wrote:

On 8/15/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:

Erik Moeller wrote:

I'm not sure GFDL is the best license for Wikiversity. It depends on the amount of content mixing with other projects that is desired. I suspect that imports from other projects will be likely to create educational materials of different kinds, such as instructional devices embedding Wikipedia articles. From that perspective, the compatibility advantage of GFDL could be a compelling argument.

The other huge issue is that most of the Wikiversity content was started on Wikibooks under the GFDL, and by abandoning the GFDL it is also abandoning all of the effort that went into Wikiversity on Wikibooks. That is a considerable amount of content and not something to be discarded lightly. This isn't like Wikinews that didn't have substantial content already developed prior to its creation. -- Robert Scott Horning

I think that the number of contributors to content of Wikiversity is low enough that a large portion of it may be able to be released under another license. All doing that requires is getting affirmative assent of all the contributors to a page / article / book / whatever that they are ok with a new license. The time to start doing that is now, however. And the question of what other license to use is a good one... if one hasn't been selected soon, it will be practically too late.

I wish that were the case, but the number of significnat contributors to Wikiversity content exceeds 100 individuals even now, many of which used anonymous IP addresses. If you are talking those who have contributed to the en.wikiversity website, yeah, you might be correct at the moment. We can change the license for that content, but not for everything that needs to be moved over. -- Robert Scott Horning

Reply

Jeff V. Merkey

8:47 p.m.

George Herbert wrote:

I think that the number of contributors to content of Wikiversity is low enough that a large portion of it may be able to be released under another license. All doing that requires is getting affirmative assent of all the contributors to a page / article / book / whatever that they are ok with a new license. The time to start doing that is now, however. And the question of what other license to use is a good one... if one hasn't been selected soon, it will be practically too late.

The Foundation should propose one as a draft and let the community vote in it since trademarks of the foundation may be involved in hard copy works. Additionally, the current way WP works doesn't 100% adhere to the GFDL in all cases and putting stuff in hard cover print looses all protections under DCMA and CDA. The publisher of these books becomes liable for the content. There should be some consideration for a publisher taking these risks. For the Cherokee textbooks, less of a problem, since we are the only consumers. English versions and more ubiquitous languages need some protection and concessions. It should be a top-down program. The publisher is the one left holding the bag if there are IP, copyright, and trademark issues. At a minimum, the Foundation should be entitled to royalties and the publisher for assuming this liability. Allowing the community to retain some copyright rights is also a good idead, but only with the Foundation as their official agent and holder of all right, title, and interest on behalf of the community. Jeff

Reply

Jeff V. Merkey

8:53 p.m.

Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

George Herbert wrote:

I think that the number of contributors to content of Wikiversity is low enough that a large portion of it may be able to be released under another license. All doing that requires is getting affirmative assent of all the contributors to a page / article / book / whatever that they are ok with a new license. The time to start doing that is now, however. And the question of what other license to use is a good one... if one hasn't been selected soon, it will be practically too late.

The Foundation should propose one as a draft and let the community vote in it since trademarks of the foundation may be involved in hard copy works. Additionally, the current way WP works doesn't 100% adhere to the GFDL in all cases and putting stuff in hard cover print looses all protections under DCMA and CDA. The publisher of these books becomes liable for the content. There should be some consideration for a publisher taking these risks. For the Cherokee textbooks, less of a problem, since we are the only consumers. English versions and more ubiquitous languages need some protection and concessions. It should be a top-down program. The publisher is the one left holding the bag if there are IP, copyright, and trademark issues. At a minimum, the Foundation should be entitled to royalties and the publisher for assuming this liability.

And the publisher **MUST** be required to indemnify the Foundation for their right to publish the works produced under the Wikiversity program. In other words, the publisher, in being granted the right to put "Wikipedia Wikiversity" trademarks on the pubished works **MUST** assume all legal costs which may arise out of their activities of publishing the content for profit.

Allowing the community to retain some copyright rights is also a good idead, but only with the Foundation as their official agent and holder of all right, title, and interest on behalf of the community. Jeff _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply

Kim Bruning

16 Aug 16 Aug

8:48 a.m.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 12:30:28PM -0700, Amgine wrote:

"I now understand why the GFDL is a bad license." Eben Moglen, Wikimania 2006

I wish I'd been at that talk! Cool. My question is in which time frame can we expect an improved GFDL? Perhaps CC-BY-SA is more appropriate until then? [1] read you soon, Kim Bruning [1] This is coming from a previously avowed GFDL proponent. They are taking way too long to fix the issues with it, however. This has been going on for how many years now? -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

Reply

Gregory Maxwell

3:20 p.m.

On 8/15/06, Amgine <amgine(a)saewyc.net> wrote:

"I now understand why the GFDL is a bad license." Eben Moglen, Wikimania 2006

Tisk tisk. This is really out of context. The invariant sections part of the GFDL sucks... but we explicitly reject using that part of the license. In practice none of the clearly negative parts of the license impact us... The requirement to include the license itself is still debatable, and for a text book oriented project I'd argue that a requirement to include the license text is beneficial. GFDL also remains the only widely used open-content license with a clear intention of dealing with DRM. The language is not ideal, but I think for textbooks the importance of DRM protection can not be underestimated. And as Erik pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the easy ability to take from Wikipedia is hard to argue against...

Reply

Anthony

11:37 a.m.

On 8/15/06, Elisabeth Bauer <elian(a)djini.de> wrote:

There might be already a discussion about this somewhere, dunno: Before wikiversity really starts, it might make sense to think about the license. There could be better choices than GFDL for such a project.

Is there any reason not to handle Wikiversity like the commons, and allow any license so long as it's free? Anthony

Reply

Guillaume Paumier

12:09 p.m.

On 8/16/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:

Is there any reason not to handle Wikiversity like the commons, and allow any license so long as it's free?

Well, isn't the clutter on Commons due to all these licenses a good reason to you ? -- Guillaume Paumier Disciplus Simplex http://fr.wikipedia.org : Resistance is futile — You will be assimilated.

Reply

James Hare

12:10 p.m.

Plus it's not good to have divergent licenses when ideally we're trying to produce original material. On 8/16/06, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/16/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:

Is there any reason not to handle Wikiversity like the commons, and allow any license so long as it's free?

Well, isn't the clutter on Commons due to all these licenses a good reason to you ? -- Guillaume Paumier Disciplus Simplex http://fr.wikipedia.org : Resistance is futile — You will be assimilated. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply

Anthony

9:28 p.m.

On 8/16/06, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/16/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:

Is there any reason not to handle Wikiversity like the commons, and allow any license so long as it's free?

Well, isn't the clutter on Commons due to all these licenses a good reason to you ?

In what way do you think there's a clutter on Commons, and why do you think it has anything to do with the number of licenses?

Reply

Michael R. Irwin

17 Aug 17 Aug

7:15 a.m.

Anthony wrote:

On 8/16/06, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 8/16/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: > > >>Is there any reason not to handle Wikiversity like the commons, and >>allow any license so long as it's free? >> >> >> >>

Yes. The GNU FDL is a fairly widely well understood copyleft or "viral" license clearly intended to grow the current and future commons. The wide range of various languages claiming to be "free" with definitions ranging from public domain to close to standard commercial copyright have the potential to alienate and confuse potential contributors. English Wikipedia clearly benefited early from committing to the FDL on the submittal form and we would like Wikiversity to gain the same rapid benefit. Particularly since the Board has chosen for us a short leash or "beta" period of six months. Personally I thought the last year was all about putting the prototyping into the proposal for a yes or no authorization. Another six month evaluation period seems to me a lot like another serious maybe or stall. Possibly detrimental to inspiring many to invest a large amount of volunteer effort at Wikiversity. Might be better to wait and see if Wikiversity is simply quietly canceled or fades out again. regards, mirwin

Reply

6478

days inactive

6480

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

15 comments

12 participants

tags (0)

participants (12)

Amgine
Anthony
Elisabeth Bauer
Erik Moeller
George Herbert
Gregory Maxwell
Guillaume Paumier
James Hare
Jeff V. Merkey
Kim Bruning
Michael R. Irwin
Robert Scott Horning