I'm breaking this out under a new subject because it merits some attention
On 4/6/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
- Some projects (I think all francophone, but I am not sure) are using
strictly GFDL 1.2. It is not because they are generally not willing to switch to CC-BY-SA, but because of legal implications of "... or any later version..." in their countries.
That's a very relevant claim that I haven't heard before. If this is true, it would obviously pose problems for those projects no matter what future changes we'd like to see to our licensing structure.
Can someone confirm? If there is more than one project/language, we should begin building a list.
If this is true, we could probably use the "protest if you object" process proposed by Mike a while ago for these projects. It would be painful if there's a substantial number of users who object to a license change, but may become necessary.
Erik Moeller wrote:
I'm breaking this out under a new subject because it merits some attention
On 4/6/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
- Some projects (I think all francophone, but I am not sure) are using
strictly GFDL 1.2. It is not because they are generally not willing to switch to CC-BY-SA, but because of legal implications of "... or any later version..." in their countries.
That's a very relevant claim that I haven't heard before. If this is true, it would obviously pose problems for those projects no matter what future changes we'd like to see to our licensing structure.
Can someone confirm? If there is more than one project/language, we should begin building a list.
What mainly matters is what the users are agreeing to (since we can change what *we* redistribute under as we wish, as long as it's some subset of what the authors have agreed to). On that, most of the Wikipedia languages unfortunately seem vague on what they're asking users to agree to when they edit.
Some examples, with decreasing clarity:
-- The English Wikipedia is explicit about it: the edit page itself requires the user to license text under the GFDL, with a footnote on the same page clarifying the conditions: version 1.2 or later, no invariant sections, etc.
-- The German Wikipedia on the edit page just says that the user agrees to license their contributions "unter der GNU-Lizenz für freie Dokumentation" without further clarification. If you click on the hyperlink for GFDL, it points to the copyright page which does have the additional "1.2 or later" verbiage in the explicit license grant. I suppose we could say the users are agreeing to this by reference, but it might be more solid if what they were agreeing to was actually on the edit page.
-- The French Wikipedia has the user to agree to license their contributions "sous la GNU Free Documentation License", and the GFDL phrase links to an *offsite* copy of the GFDL at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html, with no further clarification as regards versions, invariant sections, etc. If you do manage to end up at [[fr:Wikipédia:Droit_d'auteur]], there's still no explicit license statement at all, and definitely no "1.2 or later" verbiage.
-Mark
On 07/04/2008, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
-- The French Wikipedia has the user to agree to license their contributions "sous la GNU Free Documentation License", and the GFDL phrase links to an *offsite* copy of the GFDL at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html, with no further clarification as regards versions, invariant sections, etc. If you do manage to end up at [[fr:Wikipédia:Droit_d'auteur]], there's still no explicit license statement at all, and definitely no "1.2 or later" verbiage.
If no version is specified, then there is no problem:
10. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE: "If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation."
The only potential problem is if there are projects saying "license under GFDL v1.2 [only]".
Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
If no version is specified, then there is no problem:
- FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE:
"If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation."
The only potential problem is if there are projects saying "license under GFDL v1.2 [only]".
I think this is important, thank you Brianna.
I think it is absolutely untrue that any of our projects is licensed under conditions that do not allow "or any later version". In any event, this has never been approved by the board or, as far as I know, by any community.
There have been, in the past, some discussions by people who are not lawyers about questions of whether "or any later version" clauses are possibly problematic in some legal jurisdictions. I am unaware of any lawyer for the Foundation, for FSF, or for CC (who has the most international set of lawyers working on their licenses) ever actually making that claim. (But it is possible that someone has, I am just unaware of it.)
--Jimbo
Changing a binding license contract in Norway opens up for users opting out of the contract. I have absolutly no idea how this can be handled in colaborative works like Wikipedia. I do not know if any user will opt out, but it seems very clear to me that the possibility exist. If so, I don't think there exist any tool that can automate this process.
I'm no lawyer so it might exist some solutions to this, but I think it would be very wise to check this out and not just speculating about the matter.
John
Jimmy Wales skrev:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
If no version is specified, then there is no problem:
- FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE:
"If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation."
The only potential problem is if there are projects saying "license under GFDL v1.2 [only]".
I think this is important, thank you Brianna.
I think it is absolutely untrue that any of our projects is licensed under conditions that do not allow "or any later version". In any event, this has never been approved by the board or, as far as I know, by any community.
There have been, in the past, some discussions by people who are not lawyers about questions of whether "or any later version" clauses are possibly problematic in some legal jurisdictions. I am unaware of any lawyer for the Foundation, for FSF, or for CC (who has the most international set of lawyers working on their licenses) ever actually making that claim. (But it is possible that someone has, I am just unaware of it.)
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
While I am able to read a very basic French [1] (text of GFDL with mentioning of terms of use at the beginning), it looks to me that there is an explicitly written that texts may be used under GFDLv1.2, nothing else. However, at the other place [2] (article about Wikipedia copyrights) there is no mentioning of the version.
According to my amateur knowledge of law, it seems that there are serious problems with the clause "... or any later version..." in the continental law system.
[1] - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Licence_de_documentation_libre_G... [2] - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Droit_d%27auteur
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm breaking this out under a new subject because it merits some attention
On 4/6/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
- Some projects (I think all francophone, but I am not sure) are using
strictly GFDL 1.2. It is not because they are generally not willing to switch to CC-BY-SA, but because of legal implications of "... or any later version..." in their countries.
That's a very relevant claim that I haven't heard before. If this is true, it would obviously pose problems for those projects no matter what future changes we'd like to see to our licensing structure.
Can someone confirm? If there is more than one project/language, we should begin building a list.
If this is true, we could probably use the "protest if you object" process proposed by Mike a while ago for these projects. It would be painful if there's a substantial number of users who object to a license change, but may become necessary.
-- 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 Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
While I am able to read a very basic French [1] (text of GFDL with mentioning of terms of use at the beginning), it looks to me that there is an explicitly written that texts may be used under GFDLv1.2, nothing else. However, at the other place [2] (article about Wikipedia copyrights) there is no mentioning of the version.
According to my amateur knowledge of law, it seems that there are serious problems with the clause "... or any later version..." in the continental law system.
[1] - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Licence_de_documentation_libre_G... [2] - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Droit_d%27auteur
The concept that a third party (e.g. the FSF, Creative Commons, etc.) could unilaterally alter an agreement between an author and those reusing his work is sufficiently novel that there isn't a lot of precedent for "or later versions" in any jurisdiction.
There has been a variety of speculation on the legitimacy of such terms both in America and other places. I know some Europeans have expressed a strong opinion that it can't work at all in their particular jurisdiction.
Ultimately I don't think we will really know how well those clauses work until it is brought to court, though an abundance of caution suggests we shouldn't keep in the back of our minds that "or later versions" might fail entirely (at least in some places).
-Robert Rohde
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
According to my amateur knowledge of law, it seems that there are serious problems with the clause "... or any later version..." in the continental law system.
Could you provide any reference about this?
On 07/04/2008, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
According to my amateur knowledge of law, it seems that there are serious problems with the clause "... or any later version..." in the continental law system.
Could you provide any reference about this?
Indeed. I see this said a fair bit but not substantiation.
And remember the threat model:
"I am suing this person for violating my copyright." "But I'm using it under this later version, as you specified was allowable when you released it." "But I didn't mean it! Judge, tell him!"
- d.
On 07/04/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/04/2008, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
According to my amateur knowledge of law, it seems that there are serious problems with the clause "... or any later version..." in the continental law system.
Could you provide any reference about this?
Indeed. I see this said a fair bit but not substantiation.
And remember the threat model:
"I am suing this person for violating my copyright." "But I'm using it under this later version, as you specified was allowable when you released it." "But I didn't mean it! Judge, tell him!"
There are certain things the law doesn't allow you to agree to, whether you mean it or not. If what people are saying about French law is accurate, then it is something that needs to be given careful consideration.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
According to my amateur knowledge of law, it seems that there are serious problems with the clause "... or any later version..." in the continental law system.
Could you provide any reference about this?
If you ask me for a linguistic reference, I would be glad to give it to you :) For a lot of times I am really frustrated by the fact that I am introduced in the comparative copyright law much more than I ever imagined that I would have been introduced.
About the migration clause problems at French Wikipedia I didn't introduce myself by reading copyright-related articles at the fr.wp with my 0.1 level of French, but I heard by one of well known French Wikimedians in 2006. (So, I am not sure that your rewording of the GFDL article at fr.wp would help a lot.)
As there were a time when I was the only person or one of two persons who was taking care about legal issues related to projects in Serbian language. And I was talking a lot with a number of lawyers, including the only person in Serbia who made a PhD in copyright law (it is still fascinating to me that no one else did it in Serbia; but it is still possible because I suppose that regulation is working at the basis of patent and commercial laws).
So, if you really don't have a better person to ask (let's say, some French copyright lawyer), I may try to ask the last mentioned person for some more explanation.
If this is true, we could probably use the "protest if you object" process proposed by Mike a while ago for these projects. It would be painful if there's a substantial number of users who object to a license change, but may become necessary.
While Mike's the lawyer, not me, it still seems very strange that you can violate someone's copyright just by asking nicely and them not responding within a given time frame. Even if that is the case in the US, it would seem sensible to check with someone with a more international expertise that it works elsewhere.
There are some precedence for something like that, but it takes _years_ and should not be done unless absolutely necessary. If I'm not mistaken you have to establish that the actual contributor is "unknown", and that no one can speak for the contributor.
John
Thomas Dalton skrev:
If this is true, we could probably use the "protest if you object" process proposed by Mike a while ago for these projects. It would be painful if there's a substantial number of users who object to a license change, but may become necessary.
While Mike's the lawyer, not me, it still seems very strange that you can violate someone's copyright just by asking nicely and them not responding within a given time frame. Even if that is the case in the US, it would seem sensible to check with someone with a more international expertise that it works elsewhere.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 07/04/2008, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
There are some precedence for something like that, but it takes _years_ and should not be done unless absolutely necessary. If I'm not mistaken you have to establish that the actual contributor is "unknown", and that no one can speak for the contributor.
Then we have an issue of whether a pseudonymous contributor is known or not... They can certainly prove they are the copyright holder, if that's what matters. It needs some serious legal research.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If this is true, we could probably use the "protest if you object" process proposed by Mike a while ago for these projects. It would be painful if there's a substantial number of users who object to a license change, but may become necessary.
While Mike's the lawyer, not me, it still seems very strange that you can violate someone's copyright just by asking nicely and them not responding within a given time frame. Even if that is the case in the US, it would seem sensible to check with someone with a more international expertise that it works elsewhere.
Well, Mike has also admitted that "it can be argued pretty strongly that Wikipedia is not currently complying with GFDL fully", in which case it's irrelevant, because the GFDL is automatically revoked upon such non-compliance anyway.
In the end, all that really matters is that the people who own the copyright to Wikipedia aren't interested in going through the hassle and expense of suing the WMF. And if any of them actually were, the WMF would probably be willing to remove their contributions way before it got to that point anyway.
Well, Mike has also admitted that "it can be argued pretty strongly that Wikipedia is not currently complying with GFDL fully", in which case it's irrelevant, because the GFDL is automatically revoked upon such non-compliance anyway.
That may be an issue, but it's a far less simple one than openly using content under a license it hasn't been released under.
In the end, all that really matters is that the people who own the copyright to Wikipedia aren't interested in going through the hassle and expense of suing the WMF.
Wikipedia has made plenty of enemies over the years, some of them fairly wealthy. I think there is a good chance of someone deciding to cause trouble if they think they can win. It only takes one.
And if any of them actually were, the WMF would probably be willing to remove their contributions way before it got to that point anyway.
That's easier said than done. It would probably end up requiring the deletion of any article they contributed to, unless someone's willing to take the time to go through each article and just delete the parts they specifically contributed to.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has made plenty of enemies over the years, some of them fairly wealthy. I think there is a good chance of someone deciding to cause trouble if they think they can win. It only takes one.
...
That's easier said than done. It would probably end up requiring the deletion of any article they contributed to, unless someone's willing to take the time to go through each article and just delete the parts they specifically contributed to.
And let's imagine that someone is willing to pay to Ramman (I think that I said the right name) and a number of other significant contributors to sue Wikipedia and that a couple of them is willing to take the offer. Number of articles only on English Wikipedia may be a couple of hundreds of thousands.
They also may make a GFDL fork of Wikipedia. Maybe even not to really build a free encyclopedia, but just to damage it while pretending that they are really wanting to do so.
There are a couple of more really bad possibilities in that way, which raises the question: Does anyone really think about the possibility for really bad consequences?
Milos Rancic wrote:
There are a couple of more really bad possibilities in that way, which raises the question: Does anyone really think about the possibility for really bad consequences?
Yes, I think a lot of people spend a lot of time thinking about the possibility of really bad consequences. That's why we are doing things so carefully and with full open discussion of the right way forward.
--Jimbo
If there is a valid concern in this area, would bit makes sense to refer the issue to Sue and have Mike seek a consult from someone familiar with the particular laws in question or international copyright law in general (presuming he is not familiar himself in this area)? The specific use and application of the current license (apart from migrating to a new license or other more general issues) should be the province of the professional staff, no?
Nathan
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
There are a couple of more really bad possibilities in that way, which raises the question: Does anyone really think about the possibility for really bad consequences?
Yes, I think a lot of people spend a lot of time thinking about the possibility of really bad consequences. That's why we are doing things so carefully and with full open discussion of the right way forward.
It is really good to hear it. (I really mean that and I appreciate your email above.)
But (again...), I am really surprised that I informed Erik about something which is at least two years old. Members of the team which is negotiating shouldn't rely on informations which *someone* didn't forget.
On 4/7/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
But (again...), I am really surprised that I informed Erik about something which is at least two years old. Members of the team which is negotiating shouldn't rely on informations which *someone* didn't forget.
You made the claim that there are projects that are using "_strictly_ GFDL 1.2". So far you haven't produced evidence that there are any - the only case of ambiguity cited in this thread has been addressed. So, are there any? I'm aware of some media with a GFDL 1.2 only clause, but not of any projects.
Its enough that someone believe the project used "GFDL 1.2 only" at the moment s/he contributed. Changing the license notice later isn't addressing the problem, it escalates the problem as it opens up for a discussion wetter the terms has changed substantially. Ie., has it given the user the possibility to opt out of the contract.
Personally I think it would be very wise to take one step back and look into the problems created _very_ carefully, and ask each project if they know about any problems that might arise.
John
Erik Moeller skrev:
On 4/7/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
But (again...), I am really surprised that I informed Erik about something which is at least two years old. Members of the team which is negotiating shouldn't rely on informations which *someone* didn't forget.
You made the claim that there are projects that are using "_strictly_ GFDL 1.2". So far you haven't produced evidence that there are any - the only case of ambiguity cited in this thread has been addressed. So, are there any? I'm aware of some media with a GFDL 1.2 only clause, but not of any projects.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/7/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
But (again...), I am really surprised that I informed Erik about something which is at least two years old. Members of the team which is negotiating shouldn't rely on informations which *someone* didn't forget.
You made the claim that there are projects that are using "_strictly_ GFDL 1.2". So far you haven't produced evidence that there are any - the only case of ambiguity cited in this thread has been addressed. So, are there any? I'm aware of some media with a GFDL 1.2 only clause, but not of any projects.
Hm. Erik, it is not my job to analyze a possible problem. It was not even my job to tell you that there is a problem. I have a two years old information that fr.wp is GFDL1.2-only because of the French law. I was wondering how did you (the team) solve it and I heard that you don't know for that.
I don't want to talk about the implications of the fact that you didn't know for that, I just want that you and other members of the team address this issue and to inform us about how did you do that. As well as not to wait for anyone to discover for you possible problems, but that you do that.
While I am really not interested in the name of the license, I am interested in all consequences which this migration would bring to us. And I am able to see just more and more problems.
"Everything is OK. I am working on that." works up to the some point. I really believe to Jimmy that he wouldn't risk heavy consequences to the community.
But, you said tit is *my* job to investigate the case which is a part of your tasks. If it is a matter of Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Macedonian or Slovenian Wikipedias, I would actually do that. But, I am absolutely irrelevant for the projects in French.
BTW, I am not trying to discredit your, Jimmy's or Mike's in my emails at foundation-l; don't feel offended. From time to time I really want to go to a hibernation until the end of this nightmare, whatever the end will look like.
Hoi, What they say politely is that your information is wrong. They will not look into it because it is a waste of their time. Once you have hard evidence that there are release 1.2 only WMF wikis, they will look into it.
It is indeed a nightmare when other people have to tell you that there is no bogey man under your bed... You can leave the light on if that makes you feel more secure. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/7/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
But (again...), I am really surprised that I informed Erik about something which is at least two years old. Members of the team which is negotiating shouldn't rely on informations which *someone* didn't forget.
You made the claim that there are projects that are using "_strictly_ GFDL 1.2". So far you haven't produced evidence that there are any - the only case of ambiguity cited in this thread has been addressed. So, are there any? I'm aware of some media with a GFDL 1.2 only clause, but not of any projects.
Hm. Erik, it is not my job to analyze a possible problem. It was not even my job to tell you that there is a problem. I have a two years old information that fr.wp is GFDL1.2-only because of the French law. I was wondering how did you (the team) solve it and I heard that you don't know for that.
I don't want to talk about the implications of the fact that you didn't know for that, I just want that you and other members of the team address this issue and to inform us about how did you do that. As well as not to wait for anyone to discover for you possible problems, but that you do that.
While I am really not interested in the name of the license, I am interested in all consequences which this migration would bring to us. And I am able to see just more and more problems.
"Everything is OK. I am working on that." works up to the some point. I really believe to Jimmy that he wouldn't risk heavy consequences to the community.
But, you said tit is *my* job to investigate the case which is a part of your tasks. If it is a matter of Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Macedonian or Slovenian Wikipedias, I would actually do that. But, I am absolutely irrelevant for the projects in French.
BTW, I am not trying to discredit your, Jimmy's or Mike's in my emails at foundation-l; don't feel offended. From time to time I really want to go to a hibernation until the end of this nightmare, whatever the end will look like.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
What they say politely is that your information is wrong. They will not look into it because it is a waste of their time. Once you have hard evidence that there are release 1.2 only WMF wikis, they will look into it.
You are telling to me again the same thing. Of course that I am not willing to do anything else toward this issue. It is not my responsibility. If anyone's conclusion is that my information is wrong, it may be said so (something like "I checked it with <some better introduced person in fr.wp> and there it is not relevant issue anymore.").
It is indeed a nightmare when other people have to tell you that there is no bogey man under your bed... You can leave the light on if that makes you feel more secure.
Thank you for so high opinion about me, Gerard. Thank you for your good faith, too.
Hoi, First of all, as I mentioned before I would have the PPC be the same as PVC. This includes you. I think highly of you. I just do not always agree with you and, I am not afraid to say so. And yes, it should be a provisional project council and yes, you should not be afraid to DO things and imho this committee should just start. It does not need a mandate I think it is better off without one. I also think that you will get a mandate as a consequence of what you do and get done not because of a fancy policy paper. It is certainly how you get my approval.
Second of all. You can not expect people to spend time based on vague notions that cannot be substantiated. It might not be a bogey man but Schroedinger's cat under your bed. You do not want to be ruled by fear. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
What they say politely is that your information is wrong. They will not
look
into it because it is a waste of their time. Once you have hard
evidence
that there are release 1.2 only WMF wikis, they will look into it.
You are telling to me again the same thing. Of course that I am not willing to do anything else toward this issue. It is not my responsibility. If anyone's conclusion is that my information is wrong, it may be said so (something like "I checked it with <some better introduced person in fr.wp> and there it is not relevant issue anymore.").
It is indeed a nightmare when other people have to tell you that there
is no
bogey man under your bed... You can leave the light on if that makes
you
feel more secure.
Thank you for so high opinion about me, Gerard. Thank you for your good faith, too.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Milos Rancic wrote:
If anyone's conclusion is that my information is wrong, it may be said so (something like "I checked it with <some better introduced person in fr.wp> and there it is not relevant issue anymore.").
Not that it's wrong, but that it's too vague and unspecified. The burden must be on you to prove that there is a real problem at hand. Or else, any whisper or rumour would force the board to spend significant time on investigations, that most often would turn out to be pointless.
Somehow this relates to your earlier posting where you detailed some actual problems where the board had failed and a council would be needed. I liked that posting a lot, because it suddenly brought the discussion of a council from the abstract and fuzzy to the clear and concrete. But that also made your ideas vulnerable to scrutiny. For example, you mentioned that the board had been too slow in closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia. Well, perhaps there was (is) no real problem in delaying? Some matters are urgent, others are not. Somebody at the top must do the prioritizations, and somebody at the bottom will inevitably disagree and be unhappy. You are apparently unhappy with the board and ultimately with Anthere. But is a council really a solution? What if you, instead, was the chair of WMF? That would mean you could prioritize those issues that are really important (according to you). But what if other volunteers were constantly bothering you with irrelevant and unsubstantiated requests?
Now suppose the board continues as today, and the council is added, with you a member of the council. Some decisions are taken by the board, others by the council. Requests are acted upon in a timely manner. But will everybody at the bottom be happy now? In order to get things done, the council needs to take action after a majority vote, which leaves a minority unhappy. Even if the members of the council reach consensus and they are properly elected by and do represent their communities, will everybdoy in the community actually agree with their actions? I think not.
There are a lot of legal and organizational technicalities in setting up a council, such as how do you determine who is included in "the volunteer community" and how do you properly "represent" them. But what is the benefit? Even if you succeed in setting up the council, lots of individual volunteers will be unhappy with every single action that this council takes. The only people who get happier are those who are elected to this council. Is *that* the problem you are trying to solve?
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
If anyone's conclusion is that my information is wrong, it may be said so (something like "I checked it with <some better introduced person in fr.wp> and there it is not relevant issue anymore.").
Not that it's wrong, but that it's too vague and unspecified. The burden must be on you to prove that there is a real problem at hand. Or else, any whisper or rumour would force the board to spend significant time on investigations, that most often would turn out to be pointless.
Come on, I am not talking about something which is hard to find. It is not about XY project, it is about French projects. As my information is laying on information of another (much better introduced in fr.wp) Wikimedian, the same path may be passed to make an opposite conclusion.
And, to repeat again: I am not "the opposite side" which should prove something. I raised this as a possible problem. If no one is willing to address it, I am fine with it. (BTW, see Mike's two responses in one email of some other tread: ~ "we are aware about this, if you want more informations contact that person"; ~ "I don't think that that it is a problem". The first one is really good. About the second I may elaborate. However, in both cases I've got very clear answers to my questions.)
Somehow this relates to your earlier posting where you detailed some actual problems where the board had failed and a council would be needed. I liked that posting a lot, because it suddenly brought the discussion of a council from the abstract and fuzzy to the clear and concrete. But that also made your ideas vulnerable to scrutiny. For example, you mentioned that the board had been too slow in closing down the Moldovan Wikipedia. Well, perhaps there was (is) no real problem in delaying? Some matters are urgent, others are not. Somebody at the top must do the prioritizations, and somebody at the bottom will inevitably disagree and be unhappy. You are apparently unhappy with the board and ultimately with Anthere. But is a council really a solution? What if you, instead, was the chair of WMF? That would mean you could prioritize those issues that are really important (according to you). But what if other volunteers were constantly bothering you with irrelevant and unsubstantiated requests?
The fact is that Moldovan Wikipedia problem is not solved; as well as the fact is that from time to time we had a lot of discussions about it.
Actually, Florence is my favorite Board member. I am really confused about your conclusion. (But, thanks for noticing that, I will think about it.)
Now suppose the board continues as today, and the council is added, with you a member of the council. Some decisions are taken by the board, others by the council. Requests are acted upon in a timely manner. But will everybody at the bottom be happy now? In order to get things done, the council needs to take action after a majority vote, which leaves a minority unhappy. Even if the members of the council reach consensus and they are properly elected by and do represent their communities, will everybdoy in the community actually agree with their actions? I think not.
If it matters, I don't see myself as a representative, but as a person who is willing to help. Actually, I am a very bad representative and all communities where I may be elected know that. (I am good in some other things, but not in representation of something which I don't think.)
There are a lot of legal and organizational technicalities in setting up a council, such as how do you determine who is included in "the volunteer community" and how do you properly "represent" them. But what is the benefit? Even if you succeed in setting up the council, lots of individual volunteers will be unhappy with every single action that this council takes. The only people who get happier are those who are elected to this council. Is *that* the problem you are trying to solve?
Nobody is saying that VC should constantly make some decisions. Addressing the most of the problems is something which should be done by the process of communication between the communities and interested persons and VC should help that process.
Of course, there are more things to say about it, but I don't think that this is the right thread.
On 4/7/08, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
There are a couple of more really bad possibilities in that way, which raises the question: Does anyone really think about the possibility for really bad consequences?
Yes, I think a lot of people spend a lot of time thinking about the possibility of really bad consequences. That's why we are doing things so carefully and with full open discussion of the right way forward.
--Jimbo
I think this is quite right as a case of securing our butts, but even if we can't trust the law to be our friend, let's not lose sight of the fact that suing wikipedia would be very close to (to use a Budweiser analogy) suing cute puppy dogs.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Except when it's a volunteer council. Then we're perfectly ok with not thinking, and ready to ignore the possibility of really bad consequences. I mean, who needs things like carefulness and legitimate open discussion anyway? When the criticism gets tough, we can just ignore it and move to read-only lists and private wikis.
-Dan On Apr 9, 2008, at 3:32 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 4/7/08, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
There are a couple of more really bad possibilities in that way, which raises the question: Does anyone really think about the possibility for really bad consequences?
Yes, I think a lot of people spend a lot of time thinking about the possibility of really bad consequences. That's why we are doing things so carefully and with full open discussion of the right way forward.
--Jimbo
I think this is quite right as a case of securing our butts, but even if we can't trust the law to be our friend, let's not lose sight of the fact that suing wikipedia would be very close to (to use a Budweiser analogy) suing cute puppy dogs.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 4/7/08, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
There are a couple of more really bad possibilities in that way, which raises the question: Does anyone really think about the possibility for really bad consequences?
Yes, I think a lot of people spend a lot of time thinking about the possibility of really bad consequences. That's why we are doing things so carefully and with full open discussion of the right way forward.
I think this is quite right as a case of securing our butts, but even if we can't trust the law to be our friend, let's not lose sight of the fact that suing wikipedia would be very close to (to use a Budweiser analogy) suing cute puppy dogs.
That's probably true, but the whole point of free content is to make it so other people can reuse it (otherwise why bother with the license?), and not all of our potential reusers are as hard to sue as we are. So to be a useful free-content resource it really has to be done carefully in as clear and air-tight a way as possible.
Of course, the current situation is so bad that the English Wikipedia copyrights page at [[en:Wikipedia:Copyrights]] explicitly disclaims knowing what it would mean for a reuser to follow our license, and instead offers a few alternate possibilities with no guarantee. So if a license migration is done carefully it should certainly result in a better situation than the current one.
-Mark
In the end, all that really matters is that the people who own the copyright to Wikipedia aren't interested in going through the hassle and expense of suing the WMF.
Wikipedia has made plenty of enemies over the years, some of them fairly wealthy. I think there is a good chance of someone deciding to cause trouble if they think they can win. It only takes one.
It only takes one to do what? If one of Wikipedia's enemies wants to spend lots of money causing trouble, there are plenty of issues they could raise right now, and, as I noted before, there's a good chance they could win (though the monetary award in any case would probably be negligible).
And if any of them actually were, the WMF would probably be willing to remove their contributions way before it got to that point anyway.
That's easier said than done. It would probably end up requiring the deletion of any article they contributed to, unless someone's willing to take the time to go through each article and just delete the parts they specifically contributed to.
In order to enter into a copyright lawsuit in the United States, you first have to register your copyrighted work. So anyone serious about starting such a lawsuit has to first figure out what it is s/he claims copyright over, and moreover who the copyright holders are. If they claim copyright over the entire article of which they are only one contributor, then they'll have to also note all the other joint authors on that application. And doing that opens up the defense that any joint author can independently grant a license on the work. If, on the other hand, they decide to take the position that they are a sole author of a particular sentence or paragraph, then that is the sentence or paragraph which can be removed. Multiply by all the sentences or paragraphs they authored, and it will be a lot of work, but considering the fact that "it can be argued pretty strongly that Wikipedia is not currently complying with GFDL fully" it's work that has to eventually be done if someone decides to sue, *regardless* of whether or not the license is changed.
And, of course, in the case of the WMF, there's that other step of issuing a DMCA takedown notice. A successful lawsuit would be difficult. Possible, in my opinion, but difficult.
On 07/04/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
In the end, all that really matters is that the people who own the copyright to Wikipedia aren't interested in going through the hassle and expense of suing the WMF.
Wikipedia has made plenty of enemies over the years, some of them fairly wealthy. I think there is a good chance of someone deciding to cause trouble if they think they can win. It only takes one.
It only takes one to do what?
To require us to go to court and spend God knows how much in legal fees.
If one of Wikipedia's enemies wants to spend lots of money causing trouble, there are plenty of issues they could raise right now, and, as I noted before, there's a good chance they could win (though the monetary award in any case would probably be negligible).
There's a chance they could win now with some serious effort. If we start openly violating people's copyright on the grounds that they didn't explicitly say we couldn't, I'm not sure it would take much effort at all (Mike says it would, but I'd like a second opinion, or at least some references).
In order to enter into a copyright lawsuit in the United States, you first have to register your copyrighted work.
By my understanding, not registering just limits how much you can sue for (actual damages as opposed to statutory, or something like that - actual damages would be minimal, though).
So anyone serious about starting such a lawsuit has to first figure out what it is s/he claims copyright over, and moreover who the copyright holders are. If they claim copyright over the entire article of which they are only one contributor, then they'll have to also note all the other joint authors on that application.
Could they just claim copyright over the appropriate diffs?
And doing that opens up the defense that any joint author can independently grant a license on the work.
I think there is a difference between a joint author and an author of a modified work by someone else. If you work together on something, either of you can license it. If one person produces something and licenses you to modify it, you are restricted to what that license says you can do, and GFDL says you have to release it under "precisely this license" (quoted from memory, I read the appropriate section a couple of hours ago). My interpretation of that is that you have to release it under the same version of GFDL.
If, on the other hand, they decide to take the position that they are a sole author of a particular sentence or paragraph, then that is the sentence or paragraph which can be removed.
Not if it's since been modified, move to a different page of the article, moved to a different article altogether, split into lots of little pieces, etc.
Multiply by all the sentences or paragraphs they authored, and it will be a lot of work, but considering the fact that "it can be argued pretty strongly that Wikipedia is not currently complying with GFDL fully" it's work that has to eventually be done if someone decides to sue, *regardless* of whether or not the license is changed.
"It can be argued" doesn't mean "you can win the argument", so it's far from certain that it's a problem. It's something we need to think about, though.
And, of course, in the case of the WMF, there's that other step of issuing a DMCA takedown notice. A successful lawsuit would be difficult. Possible, in my opinion, but difficult.
By my understanding of the US legal system, we would still have to pay stupid amounts of money even if we win.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
In order to enter into a copyright lawsuit in the United States, you
first have to register your copyrighted work.
By my understanding, not registering just limits how much you can sue for (actual damages as opposed to statutory, or something like that - actual damages would be minimal, though).
<snip>
It's both. Copyright protection exists in all creative works automatically, but in order to enforce that copyright in a court of law, you are required to register the work prior to the initiation of the lawsuit. In addition, a work that was infringed prior to being registered is limited in the damages it can claim, as you suggest.
-Robert Rohde
In order to enter into a copyright lawsuit in the United States, you first have to register your copyrighted work.
By my understanding, not registering just limits how much you can sue for (actual damages as opposed to statutory, or something like that - actual damages would be minimal, though).
No, you have to register before you can sue. The distinction between actual and statutory damages is that you only get actual damages if the only violation was before you registered.
As for the rest of your post, I think we're pretty much at an impasse. :)
If one of Wikipedia's enemies wants to spend lots of money causing trouble, there are plenty of issues they could raise right now, and, as I noted before, there's a good chance they could win (though the monetary award in any case would probably be negligible).
There's a chance they could win now with some serious effort. If we start openly violating people's copyright on the grounds that they didn't explicitly say we couldn't, I'm not sure it would take much effort at all (Mike says it would, but I'd like a second opinion, or at least some references).
Actually, I will add this. It depends how open and blatant the violation is. If it's just a matter of accepting new contributions under a copyleft free license in the same spirit as the GFDL, and combining these new contributions with the old ones under the GFDL, is it really that much more open and blatant than not following the terms of the GFDL in the first place?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org