Wikimedia has a strong tradition of consensus building, so I'd like to refactor some of the comments into a kind of checklist of things we may want to see done/resolved before migrating Wikimedia projects from GFDL to CC-BY-SA. Here's a first stab:
[ ] A "statement of intent" for the CC-BY-SA license. This could address, in my view, some of the concerns regarding Creative Commons' future stewardship of the license. If there was a clear statement that summarized the goals of a share-alike/copyleft license succinctly, then CC could also make a commitment to only change the license itself in accordance with that statement.
[ ] A clear path forward regarding copyleft on embedded media. Mind you, I would argue that the current (FDL) situation is already ambiguous and complicated. Furthermore, one could make the point that this is not strictly a requirement for migrating the _text_, but it could be a requirement for migrating uploaded media.
There basically seem to be two options under consideration: either clearly making CC-BY-SA a strong copyleft license, or making a separate license that meets those needs.
[ ] An improved attribution clause that works for wikis, e.g. some version of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_suggestions#Attribution_requirements_for...
[ ] Some improvements to the CC-BY-SA "frontpage" which includes the license summary. In addition to any clarifications that might be desirable, I've discussed with Larry before the possibility of clearly labeling CC-BY-SA as a "libre" license, in accordance with the definition at freedomdefined.org -- he has expressed support for this idea.
Anything else?
On Dec 3, 2007 7:21 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
[ ] An improved attribution clause that works for wikis, e.g. some version of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GFDL_suggestions#Attribution_requirements_for...
"GFDL requires that you name at least the five primary authors." That's misleading. GFDL requires you name at least five of the primary authors *on the title page*. It *also* requires that you name "the authors" (presumably, all of them) on the page entitled History.
Crediting 5 principal authors should not be sufficient. Giving a url for the list of authors, maybe, but just choosing 5 people and ignoring the rest, no way.
"GFDL requires that you name at least the five primary authors." That's misleading. GFDL requires you name at least five of the primary authors *on the title page*. It *also* requires that you name "the authors" (presumably, all of them) on the page entitled History.
No. "History" is an invariant section, and the standard wikimedia copyright statement says that our work is released under the GFDL with no invariant sections. Also, section 4(b) of the GFDL states that an author may waive their right to be listed as an author on the title page. We encourage people not to invoke this right. We also don't go out of our way to alert them that they can. Also, if you treat wikipedia as a single work (ie, a complete encyclopedia) then the title page for all of wikipedia would only contain the names of 5 authors. I think the board could select an appropriate 5, if there was an issue.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Dec 3, 2007 7:08 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
"GFDL requires that you name at least the five primary authors." That's misleading. GFDL requires you name at least five of the primary authors *on the title page*. It *also* requires that you name "the authors" (presumably, all of them) on the page entitled History.
No. "History" is an invariant section, and the standard wikimedia copyright statement says that our work is released under the GFDL with no invariant sections.
"History" is not an invariant section.
"The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License."
Also, section 4(b) of the GFDL states that an author may waive their right to be listed as an author on the title page. We encourage people not to invoke this right. We also don't go out of our way to alert them that they can. Also, if you treat wikipedia as a single work (ie, a complete encyclopedia) then the title page for all of wikipedia would only contain the names of 5 authors. I think the board could select an appropriate 5, if there was an issue.
All of this is correct, but tangential to what I said.
On Dec 3, 2007 7:15 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No. "History" is an invariant section, and the standard wikimedia copyright statement says that our work is released under the GFDL with no invariant sections.
"History" is not an invariant section.
My interpretation of this could certainly be mistaken. I base it on this passage:
"A Secondary Section is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject ... The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them."
With the "History" section being a named appendix that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers/authors to the document. The GFDL does not explicitly say one way or the other whether this is the case.
Also, section 4(b) of the GFDL states that an author may waive their right to be listed as an author on the title page. We encourage people not to invoke this right. We also don't go out of our way to alert them that they can. Also, if you treat wikipedia as a single work (ie, a complete encyclopedia) then the title page for all of wikipedia would only contain the names of 5 authors. I think the board could select an appropriate 5, if there was an issue.
All of this is correct, but tangential to what I said.
Not tangential at all. You said that the GFDL "Requires" that we list at least 5 authors on the title page. My point here is that this is not necessarily the case. authors can opt-out of this requirement, and to my knowledge every wikipedia contributor to date has done so (or at least not explicitly opted-in).
--Andrew Whitworth
On Dec 3, 2007 7:36 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 7:15 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No. "History" is an invariant section, and the standard wikimedia copyright statement says that our work is released under the GFDL with no invariant sections.
"History" is not an invariant section.
My interpretation of this could certainly be mistaken. I base it on this passage:
"A Secondary Section is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject ... The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them."
With the "History" section being a named appendix that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers/authors to the document. The GFDL does not explicitly say one way or the other whether this is the case.
Not all Secondary Sections are Invariant Sections.
Also, section 4(b) of the GFDL states that an author may waive their right to be listed as an author on the title page. We encourage people not to invoke this right. We also don't go out of our way to alert them that they can. Also, if you treat wikipedia as a single work (ie, a complete encyclopedia) then the title page for all of wikipedia would only contain the names of 5 authors. I think the board could select an appropriate 5, if there was an issue.
All of this is correct, but tangential to what I said.
Not tangential at all. You said that the GFDL "Requires" that we list at least 5 authors on the title page. My point here is that this is not necessarily the case.
Fair enough.
authors can opt-out of this requirement, and to my knowledge every wikipedia contributor to date has done so (or at least not explicitly opted-in).
In that case, count this as my explicit opt-in. I've certainly never opted out, and I doubt very many others have either.
<quote who="Erik Moeller" date="Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 01:21:10PM +0100">
Wikimedia has a strong tradition of consensus building, so I'd like to refactor some of the comments into a kind of checklist of things we may want to see done/resolved before migrating Wikimedia projects from GFDL to CC-BY-SA.
That is an excellent list, Erik. I support everything on it and am happy to offer my time and energy to helping with any of those items.
Regards, Mako
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org