I found it in my spam label too :-) but it was only sent 2 hours ago, so maybe it will take a little bit to show up in the archives? On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Luiz Augusto <lugusto(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

"require" seems unlikely. What difference is there between a project created today and one created a year ago from a legal standpoint? Do you mean to say it's more convenient to wait?

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: I have a sudden, burning desire to rewrite the GFDL into LOLcat, for "FDL v.1.35!!!!111" [1] OH HAI, ceiling cat sez, free contentz, u can haz it! derivuhtive workz ok, if keepz teh licenez! Iz viral lolz!!111 Bewaer of teh copyrightz, u no can claim! KTHXBAI. -- phoebe, who needs to cut back on the coffee [1]http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=How_to_speak_lolcat

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hmm, that would be a good point in theory, but before a project is created, they must *already* be an active test project on the Incubator, so that content would already be 1.2-licensed and you would still have to relicense it all. (See comment 20 on the bug: "Looking forward to visit gan.wikipedia.org as soon as possible. because the test site of gan wikipedia holding over 1000 articles!") -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

On 4/13/08, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote: We can impose transparency on ourselves, but respecting the confidentiality requirements of others is just that: respect. When faced with the draft GFDL 1.3 text, we had two options: - We could either dual-license all new wikis under CC-BY-SA to avoid problems later, without providing much of an explanation; - We could postpone wiki-creation until the new license is released. We chose the latter option, because we'd much rather discuss any substantial changes to wiki licensing openly, with the full text of the license visible to the community. So, this decision was in fact made in the interest of a transparent process. (And yes, we did take the current Incubator situation into account when reviewing the text of the license.) -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

Hoi, Why not just take all Wikimedia Foundation projects off line ? Really let us have a sense of proportion. It is bad enough for the new projects not being created. Thanks, Gerard On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/14/08, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: There's no negotiation deadlock; they're just trying to fix some potential bugs with the new license before it's released. As I said, if for some reason things get stuck, we'll figure out another solution. Nobody is trying to pull a fast one here; quite the opposite: We're trying to protect the interests of the small wikis by doing this, as will become apparent when the license is released. The parameters of any migration to FDL 1.3 and, by extension, CC-BY-SA have already been defined by the Board: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update So, yes, there will be a community consultation process before any decision is made upon release of FDL 1.3. That being said: Due to the way the license works, any re-user will be able to treat content we currently host as being licensed under FDL 1.3. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

On 4/14/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote: The two are completely unrelated. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

On 4/15/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: No, the two are completely separate, as I said. The decision to switch to, for example, CC-BY-SA (if that's what FDL 1.3 allows us to do) has nothing to do with the decision not to launch new wikis right now due to the way the license is phrased. Once we have the text of the final license before us, we'll have a discussion about the best way to create new wikis. And that could be, in fact, to license them under the FDL-only, though I doubt it. But the point of the moratorium is to make that open discussion possible, rather than to silently implement some decision in the "best interests" of the small wiki communities. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

--- Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> wrote: \ But they are already started. The material exists and is already licensed and is continually built upon even now. Not having the official url doesn't really mean anything in regards to the licensing of the existing material or the ability to create new material under the current license being phased out. The url is only important as a milestone to the communities involved and creating greater exposure for the project. But it doesn't mean the the project doesn't already exist under the current version of GFDL or that new material can not be licensed under that version in these languages. If that was the intention of the moratorium, the reality of the situation fails to achieve that. Of course, just because it fails doesn't mean WMF wasn't required to do this. Maybe no one thought it through very well. Or it could also have been a concession offered by WMF to show commiment to the processs that the other parties did not realize was so undermined by the existance of Incubator. (i.e. "Look we are so commited to this process we pledge in writing not create any new wikis with the current version") Such an agreement may have gained some corresponding concession for WMF that was quite valuable. Anyway I think is it clear that a public clarification is not going to be forthcoming. I think the best approach here is imagine WMF gained something wonderful by this agreement and focus any discussion with frustrated parties on the fact that they can still create content in Incubator. Emphasize that this delay in granting the formality of the url is not a reflection on their work nor does prevent them from doing anything substantial with their project. The main, really helpful thing WMF could do would be to give deadline on this. (i.e. The moratorium will not last longer than X months reagardless of the status of negotiations.) Even if it is a really long date, like 12 months. People have much more confidence in these things when they are not open-ended. Birgitte SB ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

On 15/04/2008, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: The only way you could manage that is by not publishing a draft version which is somewhat risky. -- geni

Erik Moeller wrote: April 30 is certainly reasonable, and within the more sensible part of the wide-open range that I mentioned before. Nevertheless letting new wikis be affected presumptively by an as yet undisclosed licence generates a lot of unnecessary heat. In the foreseeable future this handful of projects would remain tiny beside the huge bulk of other WMF projects whose conversion to a new licence would be a massive undertaking. Making the migration for a few additional tiny projects would be of no great consequence. There are clearly imperfections in our application of 1.2, but it is the rule until formally replaced. At some future date 1.3 will become the rule, but until that date it is more orderly to proceed on the basis that 1.2 is fully applicable. Ec

Erik Moeller пишет: Today is April 30, please find an another solution. The best solution is to create approved Wikipedias in a normal way, I think. -- [FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE][2:5020/845.86@fidonet]

On 15/04/2008, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist(a)gmail.com> wrote: If that's the case, common sense would dictate you set the date to be the date you publish the license, not some arbitrary date potentially months before users even have a chance to consider switching.

Simetrical wrote: I have no knowledge of whether this is in fact going to be part of the license, but I do know that something like it has been requested on some other lists, so it's quite possible. The worry among some not-Wikipedia GFDL users is that any sort of open-ended "you can migrate licenses via a wiki" clause would encourage creative abuse, with stuff that was really intended by its authors to be and stay GFDL ending up getting migrated against their wishes. Putting a time limit on the migration (especially one that's already past) limits the amount of creative license migration anyone can do. -Mark

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: Thus it makes no sense for anyone to insist on that course of action to begin with. But if, for some ridiculous reason, that were nonnegotiable or not worth negotiating, it would make perfect sense to stop creating wikis temporarily rather than having to deal with the headache of migrating their license manually. Which is why I objected to the tone of the criticisms of Erik et al. -- there was a presumption of unreasonableness *on the part of Wikimedia* that wasn't warranted without further info (even if my particular theory happens to be incorrect). But I don't think you disagree with any of that.

Yay! More Wikinews sites! I sincerely hope some of the people over on the Hungarian version are up to translating their work over to English. Rico Shen does this from Chinese and if we had one person like that on each language, half the English contributors could quit and we'd still have a dozen or more stories a day. Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller Sent: 14 April 2008 00:48 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Cc: Brion Vibber Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] New wiki creation moratorium On 4/13/08, Luiz Augusto <lugusto(a)gmail.com> wrote: The drafts we've seen of the FDL 1.3, which we have to treat as confidential at this time, require this unusual step. The release of the new license is expected shortly - if things get delayed significantly further, we'll find an alternative solution. I apologize for the inconvenience to the new project communities waiting for wikis to be created. Since Wikinews is under CC-BY, there's indeed no reason to put new Wikinewses on hold, so Hungarian Wikinews can go ahead. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l