Hello
The board held a meeting on irc yesterday. Kat, Frieda, Jimmy, Jan-Bart, Anthere were present. Erik excused.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions#December_2007
4 resolutions were immediately passed, a few others are pending minor tweaks or further input.
I'd like to mention that WMF agreed to sign the Cape Town Declaration, as suggested by Melissa Hagermann.
http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/
Next irc board meeting to occur during january. Next real life board meeting probably to be expected 8-9-10th of february in San Francisco.
Longuer report to summarize year 07 and introduce year 08 to be expected early january :-)
Cheers
Florence
On 12/12/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello
The board held a meeting on irc yesterday. Kat, Frieda, Jimmy, Jan-Bart, Anthere were present. Erik excused.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions#December_2007
4 resolutions were immediately passed, a few others are pending minor tweaks or further input.
I'd like to mention that WMF agreed to sign the Cape Town Declaration, as suggested by Melissa Hagermann.
http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/
Next irc board meeting to occur during january. Next real life board meeting probably to be expected 8-9-10th of february in San Francisco.
Longuer report to summarize year 07 and introduce year 08 to be expected early january :-)
Cheers
Florence
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Congratulations for the two brand new chapters !
And congratulation for the first south america chapter :)
Christophe Henner a écrit :
On 12/12/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello
The board held a meeting on irc yesterday. Kat, Frieda, Jimmy, Jan-Bart, Anthere were present. Erik excused.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions#December_2007
4 resolutions were immediately passed, a few others are pending minor tweaks or further input.
I'd like to mention that WMF agreed to sign the Cape Town Declaration, as suggested by Melissa Hagermann.
http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/
Next irc board meeting to occur during january. Next real life board meeting probably to be expected 8-9-10th of february in San Francisco.
Longuer report to summarize year 07 and introduce year 08 to be expected early january :-)
Cheers
Florence
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Congratulations for the two brand new chapters !
And congratulation for the first south america chapter :)
Yes, many congratulations for the two brand new local chapters :)
And I'm looking forward for the time I'll be able to sign as well the Cape Town Declaration ;)
Cheers
Benji(sm89)
Seconded. :-)
On Dec 12, 2007 5:42 PM, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello
The board held a meeting on irc yesterday. Kat, Frieda, Jimmy, Jan-Bart, Anthere were present. Erik excused.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions#December_2007
4 resolutions were immediately passed, a few others are pending minor tweaks or further input.
I'd like to mention that WMF agreed to sign the Cape Town Declaration, as suggested by Melissa Hagermann.
http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/
Next irc board meeting to occur during january. Next real life board meeting probably to be expected 8-9-10th of february in San Francisco.
Longuer report to summarize year 07 and introduce year 08 to be expected early january :-)
Cheers
Florence
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Congratulations for the two brand new chapters !
And congratulation for the first south america chapter :)
-- schiste
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license;
Requsts? Is this the actual situation? If so, Foundation dictates the exact wording of GFDL and this is somewhat not what I believed was possible.
John E
On Dec 12, 2007 7:37 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update
The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license;
Requsts? Is this the actual situation? If so, Foundation dictates the exact wording of GFDL and this is somewhat not what I believed was possible.
It's just a request. We can request all sorts of things, and if the FSF wanted they could laugh in our face and say "hell no". The more important part of the resolution is the statement that the WMF, the FSF, and CC have been discussing this issue together, so we can all assume that this particular request was not made without the proper consideration from all parties.
--Andrew Whitworth
I would very much like to see a license that is better suited to our actual needs, but I don't think it is very wise to break the rules, even if everyone agrees that it is a good thing to do.
We do not follow GFDL for the moment, and actually points to an internal technical feature as an easy way out. How can we ask others to respect the license when we don't follow it? And even worse, when we try to persuade FSF to change it so we can break it?
The right thing to do is probably to start a dual licensing scheme, allow people to dual license old contributions, and then at some point in the future rewrite the remaining contributions.
GFDL is for all practical purposes one of our main building structures, do not mess with that. People will argue that there are second agendas, and you simply do not want that.
John E
Andrew Whitworth skrev:
On Dec 12, 2007 7:37 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update
The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license;
Requsts? Is this the actual situation? If so, Foundation dictates the exact wording of GFDL and this is somewhat not what I believed was possible.
It's just a request. We can request all sorts of things, and if the FSF wanted they could laugh in our face and say "hell no". The more important part of the resolution is the statement that the WMF, the FSF, and CC have been discussing this issue together, so we can all assume that this particular request was not made without the proper consideration from all parties.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 13/12/2007, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I would very much like to see a license that is better suited to our actual needs, but I don't think it is very wise to break the rules, even if everyone agrees that it is a good thing to do.
No one is suggesting breaking the rules
We do not follow GFDL for the moment,
For the most part we do.
and actually points to an internal technical feature as an easy way out. How can we ask others to respect the license when we don't follow it?
We do follow it. Individual users break it from time to time.
And even worse, when we try to persuade FSF to change it so we can break it?
The above is internally inconstant.
The right thing to do is probably to start a dual licensing scheme, allow people to dual license old contributions, and then at some point in the future rewrite the remaining contributions.
Been tried by rambot way back.
GFDL is for all practical purposes one of our main building structures, do not mess with that. People will argue that there are second agendas, and you simply do not want that.
We cannot change the terms of the GFDL. The FSF can (just as CC can and fairly regularly does change the CC licenses and the FSF updated the GPL). If you have a problem with this you may wish to avoid releasing material under the GFDL.
On Dec 12, 2007 8:02 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I would very much like to see a license that is better suited to our actual needs, but I don't think it is very wise to break the rules, even if everyone agrees that it is a good thing to do.
We do not follow GFDL for the moment, and actually points to an internal technical feature as an easy way out. How can we ask others to respect the license when we don't follow it? And even worse, when we try to persuade FSF to change it so we can break it?
It has nothing to do with breaking the license whatsoever. Any plans to migrate to a different license (and they are just distant plans still) will be completely legal and legitimate. The GFDL is about promoting free content, not acting as an immutable anchor that drags us down because it was the only option available when we started this whole mess. If the GFDL can provide an "option" for works that aren't appropriate for the GFDL to be transmuted to a better alternative with the same spirit, that's in the best interests of WMF, FSF, and free content in general. Keep in mind that the FSF doesnt want the GFDL to go down in history as "the license that ruined wikipedia". That's bad press.
--Andrew Whitworth
I'm against this move, not because GFDL is brilliant and CC-by-SA is bad, but because I don't think it is neither legal nor legitimate. Contributions are committed under a specific license and we have to respect that. If not we ruin or own creditability.
John E
Andrew Whitworth skrev:
On Dec 12, 2007 8:02 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I would very much like to see a license that is better suited to our actual needs, but I don't think it is very wise to break the rules, even if everyone agrees that it is a good thing to do.
We do not follow GFDL for the moment, and actually points to an internal technical feature as an easy way out. How can we ask others to respect the license when we don't follow it? And even worse, when we try to persuade FSF to change it so we can break it?
It has nothing to do with breaking the license whatsoever. Any plans to migrate to a different license (and they are just distant plans still) will be completely legal and legitimate. The GFDL is about promoting free content, not acting as an immutable anchor that drags us down because it was the only option available when we started this whole mess. If the GFDL can provide an "option" for works that aren't appropriate for the GFDL to be transmuted to a better alternative with the same spirit, that's in the best interests of WMF, FSF, and free content in general. Keep in mind that the FSF doesnt want the GFDL to go down in history as "the license that ruined wikipedia". That's bad press.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 12, 2007 9:19 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I'm against this move, not because GFDL is brilliant and CC-by-SA is bad, but because I don't think it is neither legal nor legitimate. Contributions are committed under a specific license and we have to respect that. If not we ruin or own creditability.
When you contribute to Wikipedia or whatever, the copyright notice explicitly says that you release your contributions under the GFDL V1.2 "or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation". If a later version published by the FSF says "Users of this license, if they meet certain conditions, may freely migrate to license X", then under the "or any later version" clause, we adopt the new GFDL and we are free to use any migration clauses in that license. It is neither illegal (in most jurisdictions) nor illegitimate.
--Andrew Whitworth
First of all, I'm not quite sure who you claims to be "we", it will clearly not include a very large number of contributors, even if most contributors will vote yes to anything they are asked to vote for as long as the right people claims it is a wise thing to do.
I do accept that GFDL is not the right thing for Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia as such, but this particular solution isn't very wise and probably shouldn't be considered at all.
There are at least one very important thing you forget. The words "requests" in the original posting, and that a license is a binding contract in a large number of countries, will create a situation whereby one part changes the contract. If you change it in such a way as to break the original meaning, the new version is not binding any more. The question is not that it is possible to do the transition in some jurisdiction but rather if it will be binding for the contributors as such.
FSFs licenses are made to be binding, and if they starts a path of tweaking the license text to any customers needs they will loose creditability at an enormous rate. Wikimedias "request" is about as bad as it can be, it would not be any worse if Bill Gates or Steve Jobs did the request. Excuse me for the example, they were the first to slip into my mind. A slight "correction" of the meaning is not enough to calm the situation, the damage is already done, people are starting to ask questions about the "real" reasoning behind this and if FSF is dependable.
My worse nightmare is a scenario whereby contributors claim Foundation has broken the license contract and goes after some firm using material from a Wikimedia project in some other jurisdiction.
My second worse nightmare is contributors claiming they to want to renegotiate the license. That will really be fun.
John E
Andrew Whitworth skrev:
On Dec 12, 2007 9:19 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I'm against this move, not because GFDL is brilliant and CC-by-SA is bad, but because I don't think it is neither legal nor legitimate. Contributions are committed under a specific license and we have to respect that. If not we ruin or own creditability.
When you contribute to Wikipedia or whatever, the copyright notice explicitly says that you release your contributions under the GFDL V1.2 "or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation". If a later version published by the FSF says "Users of this license, if they meet certain conditions, may freely migrate to license X", then under the "or any later version" clause, we adopt the new GFDL and we are free to use any migration clauses in that license. It is neither illegal (in most jurisdictions) nor illegitimate.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
There are at least one very important thing you forget. The words "requests" in the original posting, and that a license is a binding contract in a large number of countries, will create a situation whereby one part changes the contract. If you change it in such a way as to break the original meaning, the new version is not binding any more. The question is not that it is possible to do the transition in some jurisdiction but rather if it will be binding for the contributors as such.
Herein lies the key to this whole issue: whether the contract is changed in such as way "as to break the original meaning". You're making the false assumption here that the spirit of the GFDL V1.2 will be violated by any migration, or that the CC-BY-SA is sufficiently different in meaning and spirit to represent a "break". This is simply not going to be the case. If I may quote section 10 of the GFDL:
"The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns."
The FSF has already included the possibility of new license versions with a similar spirit, but different details. Using the "any later version" clause, our contributors have already implicitly agreed to any future migrations from GFDL V1.2 to GFDL Vx.x, so long as the license is published by the FSF, and is similar in spirit (although different, ostensibly improved, in detail). Having a clause in the GFDL that allows a similar migration to another license with similar spirit but different details is already written into the contract. Whether we call this new license "GFDL" or not is, presumably, one such "detail".
My worse nightmare is a scenario whereby contributors claim Foundation has broken the license contract and goes after some firm using material from a Wikimedia project in some other jurisdiction.
If you think anybody is jumping into this without proper consideration, input from lawyers and experts, etc, then you must be terribly mistaken. All parties involved have a vested interest to insure that every possibly precaution is taken, and that all serious questions are answered before making any kinds of a move like this. The FSF has a lot more to worry about then the happiness of Wikimedians, and they certainly aren't going to put themselves in harms way any more then we intend to put ourselves there.
--Andrew Whitworth
On 13/12/2007, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 7:37 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update
The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license;
Requsts? Is this the actual situation? If so, Foundation dictates the exact wording of GFDL and this is somewhat not what I believed was possible.
It's just a request. We can request all sorts of things, and if the FSF wanted they could laugh in our face and say "hell no".
The good thing here, for fans of the GFDL, is that Richard Stallman has yet to be convinced to do a damned thing he didn't want to ever, and is as uncorruptible as you're likely to find around the sordid world of universal computation devices.
The more important part of the resolution is the statement that the WMF, the FSF, and CC have been discussing this issue together, so we can all assume that this particular request was not made without the proper consideration from all parties.
- d.
On 13/12/2007, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update
The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license;
Requsts? Is this the actual situation? If so, Foundation dictates the exact wording of GFDL and this is somewhat not what I believed was possible.
"...in the fashion proposed by the FSF" is the critical term there. The FSF propose how they're going to do it; we sign up and say 'please!'
Sorry to say, but I don't think this is feasible anymore. Not without a massive loss of creditability. John E
Andrew Gray skrev:
On 13/12/2007, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
From http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update
The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license;
Requsts? Is this the actual situation? If so, Foundation dictates the exact wording of GFDL and this is somewhat not what I believed was possible.
"...in the fashion proposed by the FSF" is the critical term there. The FSF propose how they're going to do it; we sign up and say 'please!'
On 13/12/2007, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
Sorry to say, but I don't think this is feasible anymore. Not without a massive loss of creditability. John E
Fortunately we don't have to rely on your speculation the FSF updated the GPL to version 3 on the 29th of June 2007 so we know they can update licenses without a significant loss of credibility.
I think everyone knows that they can. The question is wetter Wikimedia should "request" a change tailored to break a contract with the contributors.
I for one find this extremely disturbing, and then going from a less than optimum license to one even worse? And it ain't even april yet?
John E
geni skrev:
On 13/12/2007, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
Sorry to say, but I don't think this is feasible anymore. Not without a massive loss of creditability. John E
Fortunately we don't have to rely on your speculation the FSF updated the GPL to version 3 on the 29th of June 2007 so we know they can update licenses without a significant loss of credibility.
On 13/12/2007, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I think everyone knows that they can. The question is wetter Wikimedia should "request" a change tailored to break a contract with the contributors.
You mean the bit where the contributors agreed to "or later"? Your post is FUDding at best.
- d.
On Dec 13, 2007 4:24 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I think everyone knows that they can. The question is wetter Wikimedia should "request" a change tailored to break a contract with the contributors.
Your insistence in stating that our request is anything negative, or that somehow it's going to create a break in the contract, or will result in some sort of "nightmare" situation is completely unfounded. I would like to know why you are being so persistent in asserting that the WMF or the FSF is doing something wrong, or illegal, or immoral, or whatever. It simply isn't "bad" in the way you seem to think it is.
I for one find this extremely disturbing, and then going from a less than optimum license to one even worse? And it ain't even april yet?
Why do you find it so disturbing? I'm thinking that perhaps you must be a little misinformed.
--Andrew Whitworth
Can you please explain what you try to say with "I would like to know why you are being so persistent"? Am I not allowed to make my own opinion? I think I have a reputation to say whatever I think is right without abiding to what you or anyone else think is right.
I believe this license change is wrong, because it will break the contract with the contributors.
John E Blad User:jeblad
Andrew Whitworth skrev:
On Dec 13, 2007 4:24 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I think everyone knows that they can. The question is wetter Wikimedia should "request" a change tailored to break a contract with the contributors.
Your insistence in stating that our request is anything negative, or that somehow it's going to create a break in the contract, or will result in some sort of "nightmare" situation is completely unfounded. I would like to know why you are being so persistent in asserting that the WMF or the FSF is doing something wrong, or illegal, or immoral, or whatever. It simply isn't "bad" in the way you seem to think it is.
I for one find this extremely disturbing, and then going from a less than optimum license to one even worse? And it ain't even april yet?
Why do you find it so disturbing? I'm thinking that perhaps you must be a little misinformed.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 13, 2007 6:46 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
Can you please explain what you try to say with "I would like to know why you are being so persistent"? Am I not allowed to make my own opinion? I think I have a reputation to say whatever I think is right without abiding to what you or anyone else think is right.
My only point here is that you are saying these things, and other people are repeatedly trying to tell you that they aren't accurate. The "I won't change what I think no matter what anybody says" approach is rarely a constructive one.
--Andrew Whitworth
On 13/12/2007, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
Can you please explain what you try to say with "I would like to know why you are being so persistent"? Am I not allowed to make my own opinion? I think I have a reputation to say whatever I think is right without abiding to what you or anyone else think is right.
Because you are asserting not merely your own opinions, but your own facts, ones which are not in accordance with reality.
- d.
John,
At some level the GFDL is about both a specific legal document (the license) and a larger philosophical movement (copyleft / free content).
From the beginning the FSF intended to preserve a capacity to update the
license in order to further the copyleft agenda and deal with emerging legal and technical challenges.
While I agree that there could be serious problems if a future license deviates in significant ways from the current one, I don't think the current intent is a nefarious one. Rather they are looking to continue to advance the overall movement in a way that is "consistent with the spirit" of the current license.
Are you objecting in general about the concept of any possible change to the license or is there some specific about this change that you are worrying about?
-Robert Rohde
On Dec 13, 2007 3:46 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
Can you please explain what you try to say with "I would like to know why you are being so persistent"? Am I not allowed to make my own opinion? I think I have a reputation to say whatever I think is right without abiding to what you or anyone else think is right.
I believe this license change is wrong, because it will break the contract with the contributors.
John E Blad User:jeblad
Andrew Whitworth skrev:
On Dec 13, 2007 4:24 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I think everyone knows that they can. The question is wetter Wikimedia should "request" a change tailored to break a contract with the contributors.
Your insistence in stating that our request is anything negative, or that somehow it's going to create a break in the contract, or will result in some sort of "nightmare" situation is completely unfounded. I would like to know why you are being so persistent in asserting that the WMF or the FSF is doing something wrong, or illegal, or immoral, or whatever. It simply isn't "bad" in the way you seem to think it is.
I for one find this extremely disturbing, and then going from a less than optimum license to one even worse? And it ain't even april yet?
Why do you find it so disturbing? I'm thinking that perhaps you must be a little misinformed.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Maybe I'm a little bit late to the party, but I do have one question about a potential migration.
Currently, our contributions are released under the GFDL v1.2+. So, any modifications by FSF to the license would not be problematic. However, even if GFDL v1.3 said that its end users could migrate texts to CC-BY-SA, does that mean we can? Since we agreed to give our contributions to Wikimedia under the "GFDL", I'm concerned whether we may change licenses because we agreed to use the GFDL in particular.
Since that probably doesn't make much sense, let me rephrase it: In other words, if GFDL v1.3 were a letter-by-letter copy of CC-BY-SA, there wouldn't be any problems, definitely. But if we decided to switch from that GFDL v1.3to the identical CC-BY-SA, would there be any problems because we are not using a license with the name "GNU Free Documentation License" anymore? Is there any precedent for this occuring?
Titoxd.
On Dec 13, 2007 5:05 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
John,
At some level the GFDL is about both a specific legal document (the license) and a larger philosophical movement (copyleft / free content).
From the beginning the FSF intended to preserve a capacity to update the license in order to further the copyleft agenda and deal with emerging legal and technical challenges.
While I agree that there could be serious problems if a future license deviates in significant ways from the current one, I don't think the current intent is a nefarious one. Rather they are looking to continue to advance the overall movement in a way that is "consistent with the spirit" of the current license.
Are you objecting in general about the concept of any possible change to the license or is there some specific about this change that you are worrying about?
-Robert Rohde
On Dec 13, 2007 3:46 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
Can you please explain what you try to say with "I would like to know why you are being so persistent"? Am I not allowed to make my own opinion? I think I have a reputation to say whatever I think is right without abiding to what you or anyone else think is right.
I believe this license change is wrong, because it will break the contract with the contributors.
John E Blad User:jeblad
Andrew Whitworth skrev:
On Dec 13, 2007 4:24 PM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I think everyone knows that they can. The question is wetter
Wikimedia
should "request" a change tailored to break a contract with the contributors.
Your insistence in stating that our request is anything negative, or that somehow it's going to create a break in the contract, or will result in some sort of "nightmare" situation is completely unfounded. I would like to know why you are being so persistent in asserting that the WMF or the FSF is doing something wrong, or illegal, or immoral, or whatever. It simply isn't "bad" in the way you seem to think it is.
I for one find this extremely disturbing, and then going from a less than optimum license to one even worse? And it ain't even april yet?
Why do you find it so disturbing? I'm thinking that perhaps you must be a little misinformed.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 15/12/2007, Titoxd @ Wikimedia titoxd.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I'm a little bit late to the party, but I do have one question about a potential migration.
Currently, our contributions are released under the GFDL v1.2+. So, any modifications by FSF to the license would not be problematic. However, even if GFDL v1.3 said that its end users could migrate texts to CC-BY-SA, does that mean we can? Since we agreed to give our contributions to Wikimedia under the "GFDL", I'm concerned whether we may change licenses because we agreed to use the GFDL in particular.
Since that probably doesn't make much sense, let me rephrase it: In other words, if GFDL v1.3 were a letter-by-letter copy of CC-BY-SA, there wouldn't be any problems, definitely. But if we decided to switch from that GFDL v1.3to the identical CC-BY-SA, would there be any problems because we are not using a license with the name "GNU Free Documentation License" anymore? Is there any precedent for this occuring?
It's a technical detail that I'm sure the FSF will take into account. They would have to be extremely stupid to ignore such an obvious point. What say we wait until we've seen the license before picking holes in it?
As long as it does not GFDL it breaks the contract. A change of GFDL to facilitate a swap with CC-by-sa is probably also illegitimate to the users. The only legally binding solution is the hard way to start dual licensing, let the users dual license old contributions and at some time in the future (several years) drop GFDL when all old contributions are fixed.
That said, cc-by-sa does not cover collaborative attributions and must also be changed. This is a very central reason for the swap and cc-by-sa does not solve it at all. GFDL says you can get away with crediting five - 5 - contributors, cc-by-sa says you have to credit all contributors.
I think the best solution would be to branch GFDL at its present state, and make a Gnu license specially tailored to the needs of collaborative systems like Wikipedia. Don't start with a discussion about who is behind which license scheme, start with a discussion about what are the actual needs, how can it be achieved, and is the different options legal in all jurisdictions.
In short, I don't think it was very wise to start this process without having a plan how to fix the problems. To me it sounds like a quick fix devised downtown very late in the evening. ;)
John E
Thomas Dalton skrev:
On 15/12/2007, Titoxd @ Wikimedia titoxd.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I'm a little bit late to the party, but I do have one question about a potential migration.
Currently, our contributions are released under the GFDL v1.2+. So, any modifications by FSF to the license would not be problematic. However, even if GFDL v1.3 said that its end users could migrate texts to CC-BY-SA, does that mean we can? Since we agreed to give our contributions to Wikimedia under the "GFDL", I'm concerned whether we may change licenses because we agreed to use the GFDL in particular.
Since that probably doesn't make much sense, let me rephrase it: In other words, if GFDL v1.3 were a letter-by-letter copy of CC-BY-SA, there wouldn't be any problems, definitely. But if we decided to switch from that GFDL v1.3to the identical CC-BY-SA, would there be any problems because we are not using a license with the name "GNU Free Documentation License" anymore? Is there any precedent for this occuring?
It's a technical detail that I'm sure the FSF will take into account. They would have to be extremely stupid to ignore such an obvious point. What say we wait until we've seen the license before picking holes in it?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If there was a plan I sure hope they will post it in a _very_short_time_ as the present state of the matter is not what I would say is even close to the standard the board should follow. Even the statement "Upon the announcement of that relicensing, the Foundation will initiate a process of community discussion" creates serious concerns that a relicensing will be done without a prior real discussion. Given the previous discussion on this list I'm not assured at all that this isn't the situation.
No, I don't like this at all.
John E Blad
Thomas Dalton skrev:
In short, I don't think it was very wise to start this process without having a plan how to fix the problems. To me it sounds like a quick fix devised downtown very late in the evening. ;)
How do you know there's no plan? Were you in the meetings?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 15/12/2007, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
If there was a plan I sure hope they will post it in a _very_short_time_ as the present state of the matter is not what I would say is even close to the standard the board should follow. Even the statement "Upon the announcement of that relicensing, the Foundation will initiate a process of community discussion" creates serious concerns that a relicensing will be done without a prior real discussion. Given the previous discussion on this list I'm not assured at all that this isn't the situation.
You're completely misinterpreting that quote. The FSF are going to write a new version of the GFDL which will be compatible with CC-by-SA, for some, as yet unknown (to me, at least), definition of "compatible". That will happen before the Wikimedia Community is consulted, since we have nothing to do with it. After that, the WMF will consult the community and decide if they will transfer Wikipedia, etc., onto the new license.
Currently, our contributions are released under the GFDL v1.2+. So, any modifications by FSF to the license would not be problematic. However, even if GFDL v1.3 said that its end users could migrate texts to CC-BY-SA, does that mean we can? Since we agreed to give our contributions to Wikimedia under the "GFDL", I'm concerned whether we may change licenses because we agreed to use the GFDL in particular.
This is the only part of a potential migration that I find problematic, as well. Of course, until we see the new licenses, we can't call it one way or the other.
The GFDL does say:
"If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation."
The specific inclusion of the FSF in the grandfathering clause strikes me as an indication that part of the license terms is the fact that the FSF is solely responsible for maintaining the license under which the material is released. Transferring to a different FSF license, regardless of the specific name of the license (GFDL V1.3, GNU-Wiki License, GNU-CC-BY-SA, whatever) is inconsequential. However, I wonder if this grandfathering clause will be voided if we attempt to transfer to a license maintained by a different organization.
This is all speculation, of course. I personally don't *think* there is going to be much of a problem, but I also wouldnt be surprised if a few hard-asses try raise an issue just to prove an ideological point.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Dec 13, 2007 4:10 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/12/2007, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
Sorry to say, but I don't think this is feasible anymore. Not without a massive loss of creditability. John E
Fortunately we don't have to rely on your speculation the FSF updated the GPL to version 3 on the 29th of June 2007 so we know they can update licenses without a significant loss of credibility.
Didn't Linus refuse to move Linux to GPLv3? I'm not sure there wasn't a "significant" loss of credibility in the GPL version change.
On 13/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Didn't Linus refuse to move Linux to GPLv3?
Didn't he do that before anyone was really thinking about v3 though?
I'm not sure there wasn't a "significant" loss of credibility in the GPL version change.
Not seen it yet. upset a few people yes but nothing wider.
Christophe Henner wrote:
Congratulations for the two brand new chapters !
And congratulation for the first south america chapter :)
Technically, however, Argentina is not the first chapter in South America. France has that distinction ;)
Cary Bass wrote:
Christophe Henner wrote:
Congratulations for the two brand new chapters !
And congratulation for the first south america chapter :)
Technically, however, Argentina is not the first chapter in South America. France has that distinction ;)
I must be missing something... According to the famous encyclopedia, France is not in...
On 13/12/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
Christophe Henner wrote:
Congratulations for the two brand new chapters !
And congratulation for the first south america chapter :)
Technically, however, Argentina is not the first chapter in South America. France has that distinction ;)
I must be missing something... According to the famous encyclopedia, France is not in...
You need to look at the right bits of the famous encyclopedia ;-)
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_d%27outre-mer
2007/12/13, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Cary Bass wrote:
Christophe Henner wrote:
Congratulations for the two brand new chapters !
And congratulation for the first south america chapter :)
Technically, however, Argentina is not the first chapter in South America. France has that distinction ;)
I must be missing something... According to the famous encyclopedia, France is not in...
New Caledonia... :)
Jerome
2007/12/13, Jerome Banal jerome.banal@gmail.com:
2007/12/13, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Cary Bass wrote:
Christophe Henner wrote:
Congratulations for the two brand new chapters !
And congratulation for the first south america chapter :)
Technically, however, Argentina is not the first chapter in South America. France has that distinction ;)
I must be missing something... According to the famous encyclopedia, France is not in...
New Caledonia... :)
Jerome
Err, whooops, will learn geography again by the way... Sorry for my dear
friends of New Caledonia...
Jerome
Jerome Banal wrote:
2007/12/13, Jerome Banal jerome.banal@gmail.com:
2007/12/13, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Cary Bass wrote:
Christophe Henner wrote:
Congratulations for the two brand new chapters !
And congratulation for the first south america chapter :)
Technically, however, Argentina is not the first chapter in South America. France has that distinction ;)
I must be missing something... According to the famous encyclopedia, France is not in...
New Caledonia... :)
Jerome
Err, whooops, will learn geography again by the way... Sorry for my dear
friends of New Caledonia...
Jerome
Hmmmm. Right. I am suddenly wondering if setting chapters through their national bounderies is really such a good idea... 'cause let's face it, I doubt the french chapter will organise a meeting over there or participate to a conference, any time soon.
Hmmm, note that it also means that we already have a chapter in Africa as well (Mayotte), as well as in North America (St Pierre et Miquelon).
eh
ant
On Dec 13, 2007 8:02 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Hmmmm. Right. I am suddenly wondering if setting chapters through their national bounderies is really such a good idea... 'cause let's face it, I doubt the french chapter will organise a meeting over there or participate to a conference, any time soon.
Um. yes. but I think we're not alone in this situation...anyone knows how WWF/Greenpeace/YOURFAVORITECHARITY France deal with this? Do they have local branches in the outre-mer-territories?
Michael
Hmmmm, eh, I did propose a trip to French Guiana for a photographer and/or biologist some time next year (end of dry season, lots of sunlight to take photos of rare flora and fauna, possible crashing at my place), so hopefully that will go ahead. Anyone interested? ^^ --Maria User:Arria Belli
On 12/13/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Hmmmm. Right. I am suddenly wondering if setting chapters through their national bounderies is really such a good idea... 'cause let's face it, I doubt the french chapter will organise a meeting over there or participate to a conference, any time soon.
Hmmm, note that it also means that we already have a chapter in Africa as well (Mayotte), as well as in North America (St Pierre et Miquelon).
eh
ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Dec 13, 2007 12:58 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
Christophe Henner wrote:
Congratulations for the two brand new chapters !
And congratulation for the first south america chapter :)
Technically, however, Argentina is not the first chapter in South America. France has that distinction ;)
I must be missing something... According to the famous encyclopedia, France is not in...
[[w:French Guiana]]. "part" of france is over there.
--Andrew Whitworth
2007/12/12, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Hello
The board held a meeting on irc yesterday. Kat, Frieda, Jimmy, Jan-Bart, Anthere were present. Erik excused.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions#December_2007
4 resolutions were immediately passed, a few others are pending minor tweaks or further input.
I'd like to mention that WMF agreed to sign the Cape Town Declaration, as suggested by Melissa Hagermann.
http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/
Next irc board meeting to occur during january. Next real life board meeting probably to be expected 8-9-10th of february in San Francisco.
Longuer report to summarize year 07 and introduce year 08 to be expected early january :-)
Cheers
Florence
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Congrats!
Nick
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org