As far as anyone not subscribed to this listserv can tell, the proposal to migrate Wikipedia to Creative Commons is dead in the water. Despite requests for an update on-wiki, no updates have come from the Foundation since January. Looking at the archives here, it looks like the last update was from Erik Möller on February 3rd in which he said that he was hoping to "get some survey data this week, and move quickly after that." Was the survey conducted? Is there a new target date for the proposal? I'll be happy to post an update on-wiki if someone will provide some information as to what the hold-up is. I hope this email doesn't come across as critical or confrontational. I'm simply trying to bridge the communication gap between the Foundation and the community on this important issue. Thanks for your attention.
Ryan Kaldari
2009/2/18 Ryan Kaldari kaldari@gmail.com:
it looks like the last update was from Erik Möller on February 3rd in which he said that he was hoping to "get some survey data this week, and move quickly after that." Was the survey conducted?
I don't remember seeing a survey... I certainly didn't fill one out.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/18 Ryan Kaldari kaldari@gmail.com:
it looks like the last update was from Erik Möller on February 3rd in which he said that he was hoping to "get some survey data this week, and move quickly after that." Was the survey conducted?
I don't remember seeing a survey... I certainly didn't fill one out.
We do still plan to have a survey, although I don't think it's critical that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to get some more information that would help work out details for attribution standards. Not everything is specified in the licenses, for good reason, and we should continue fine-tuning attribution after whatever decision we make, no need to close off the discussion. To a large part attribution is independent of the relicensing question, it's just that this is a good time to also foster discussion on the issue.
As to the vote, my understanding is that we needed to sort out the timing because of the plan to have it administered by an external body. I'm not sure where that stands, but we do intend to go forward with it soon.
--Michael Snow
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
We do still plan to have a survey, although I don't think it's critical that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to get some more information that would help work out details for attribution standards. Not everything is specified in the licenses, for good reason, and we should continue fine-tuning attribution after whatever decision we make, no need to close off the discussion. To a large part attribution is independent of the relicensing question, it's just that this is a good time to also foster discussion on the issue.
I will oppose any proposal that doesn't specify attribution standards, and I doubt I'm alone in that - they are a matter of how we are interpreting the license. You can't vote on whether to adopt a license without knowing what that license means.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
We do still plan to have a survey, although I don't think it's critical that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to get some more information that would help work out details for attribution standards. Not everything is specified in the licenses, for good reason, and we should continue fine-tuning attribution after whatever decision we make, no need to close off the discussion. To a large part attribution is independent of the relicensing question, it's just that this is a good time to also foster discussion on the issue.
I will oppose any proposal that doesn't specify attribution standards, and I doubt I'm alone in that - they are a matter of how we are interpreting the license. You can't vote on whether to adopt a license without knowing what that license means.
That's why we made it a point to include some attribution standards in the proposal, so that we don't vote on this in a vacuum. But whatever happens in the near term, the evolution of attribution standards will be a continuing activity. We can't know in advance for every case what the license will mean since we may not be able to anticipate each case correctly. That doesn't mean the license has changed, just that the attribution standards need more development.
--Michael Snow
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
That's why we made it a point to include some attribution standards in the proposal, so that we don't vote on this in a vacuum.
I don't believe I've seen a formal proposal yet - did I miss it?
It's already been made clear that the foundation has no obligation to consult the community on this issue. My interpretation of Michael's post is that he is restating this point. They are *going* to make the switch, and when they do we will be bound by what the CC-BY-SA says attribution is. We take it on good faith that the foundation will work with cc (and that the cc will work with the foundation..) to come up with an interpretation of the attribution requirements that is more or less consistent with the vote. But there is no need to hold a vote now since they have already decided to make the switch.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
That's why we made it a point to include some attribution standards in the proposal, so that we don't vote on this in a vacuum.
I don't believe I've seen a formal proposal yet - did I miss it?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/2/18 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
It's already been made clear that the foundation has no obligation to consult the community on this issue. My interpretation of Michael's post is that he is restating this point. They are *going* to make the switch, and when they do we will be bound by what the CC-BY-SA says attribution is.
That's your interpretation of his repeated use of the word "vote"?
It's been said quite clearly that the foundation doesn't have to consult the community, although not in this thread.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/18 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
It's already been made clear that the foundation has no obligation to consult the community on this issue. My interpretation of Michael's post is that he is restating this point. They are *going* to make the switch, and when they do we will be bound by what the CC-BY-SA says attribution is.
That's your interpretation of his repeated use of the word "vote"?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/2/18 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
It's been said quite clearly that the foundation doesn't have to consult the community, although not in this thread.
Legally, they can do whatever the hell they like, but it's always been made very clear that they have no intention of switching without community approval.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
That's why we made it a point to include some attribution standards in the proposal, so that we don't vote on this in a vacuum.
I don't believe I've seen a formal proposal yet - did I miss it?
There's the licensing update page on Meta, currently marked as a draft. I'm not sure what you were looking for, but feel free to approach that as the proposal, it's what we've been discussing all along, I believe. We'll probably take off the "draft" status at some point, but there are tradeoffs between formality and retaining the ability to address and incorporate feedback before we vote.
--Michael Snow
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
That's why we made it a point to include some attribution standards in the proposal, so that we don't vote on this in a vacuum.
I don't believe I've seen a formal proposal yet - did I miss it?
There's the licensing update page on Meta, currently marked as a draft. I'm not sure what you were looking for, but feel free to approach that as the proposal, it's what we've been discussing all along, I believe. We'll probably take off the "draft" status at some point, but there are tradeoffs between formality and retaining the ability to address and incorporate feedback before we vote.
Oh, yes, there is that draft. Obviously, the point at which you take off the "draft" needs to be before the vote - which needs to be sooner rather than later if we're going to have a definite result in time (the Foundation is registered in Florida, after all! ;)).
Incidentally, what contact have you had with CC about how they interpret the license? Particularly regarding the "attribution by reference" issue.
Hoi, The way I read Michael, it is an open issue never mind what license we choose. It is therefore an issue whether we stay with the GFDL or not. It is in my opinion weird to allow arguments that have no bearing whatsoever on the subject make a difference. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/18 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
We do still plan to have a survey, although I don't think it's critical that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to get some more information that would help work out details for attribution standards. Not everything is specified in the licenses, for good reason, and we should continue fine-tuning attribution after whatever decision we make, no need to close off the discussion. To a large part attribution is independent of the relicensing question, it's just that this is a good time to also foster discussion on the issue.
I will oppose any proposal that doesn't specify attribution standards, and I doubt I'm alone in that - they are a matter of how we are interpreting the license. You can't vote on whether to adopt a license without knowing what that license means.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/2/18 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The way I read Michael, it is an open issue never mind what license we choose. It is therefore an issue whether we stay with the GFDL or not. It is in my opinion weird to allow arguments that have no bearing whatsoever on the subject make a difference.
I think we all accept that we currently interpret the GFDL very loosely (probably to the point of not strictly following it), since it doesn't really make sense for what we're doing with it. If we're going to switch to a new license we ought to do it with the intention of following it properly. That means we need to know what following it properly entails before we can know if we want to switch.
Hoi, Sure but when the way we are going to do this is different from what the license says anyway.. and this is the implication, then there is no point in throwing the child away with the bathing water as you propose. So imho we should compare the two licenses and in essence we already agree that the GFDL is not suitable to our needs so consequently we will do well by making the switch as per your own argument. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/18 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
2009/2/18 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The way I read Michael, it is an open issue never mind what license we choose. It is therefore an issue whether we stay with the GFDL or not. It
is
in my opinion weird to allow arguments that have no bearing whatsoever on the subject make a difference.
I think we all accept that we currently interpret the GFDL very loosely (probably to the point of not strictly following it), since it doesn't really make sense for what we're doing with it. If we're going to switch to a new license we ought to do it with the intention of following it properly. That means we need to know what following it properly entails before we can know if we want to switch.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/2/18 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Sure but when the way we are going to do this is different from what the license says anyway
It is? Then I won't be voting for it...
For the record, I disagree that "the way we are going to do this is different from what the license says anyway" at least as the starting point. I think it should be very carefully thought about if there were a conscious decision to violate the license explicitly. That said there is of course a gray area, where legitimate disagreements can be had about what the license entails, but that is a completely different issue.
It is true that there has been the "nod and a wink" understanding between FSF and WMF about how some things are left unresolved.
But that absolutely need not translate into the CC-BY-SA world, since there are no *real* points of significant obstacle to fully complying with its provisions quite exhaustively.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Sure but when the way we are going to do this is different from what the license says anyway.. and this is the implication, then there is no point in throwing the child away with the bathing water as you propose. So imho we should compare the two licenses and in essence we already agree that the GFDL is not suitable to our needs so consequently we will do well by making the switch as per your own argument. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/18 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
2009/2/18 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The way I read Michael, it is an open issue never mind what license we choose. It is therefore an issue whether we stay with the GFDL or not. It
is
in my opinion weird to allow arguments that have no bearing whatsoever on the subject make a difference.
I think we all accept that we currently interpret the GFDL very loosely (probably to the point of not strictly following it), since it doesn't really make sense for what we're doing with it. If we're going to switch to a new license we ought to do it with the intention of following it properly. That means we need to know what following it properly entails before we can know if we want to switch.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
We do still plan to have a survey, although I don't think it's critical that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to get some more information that would help work out details for attribution standards. Not everything is specified in the licenses, for good reason, and we should continue fine-tuning attribution after whatever decision we make, no need to close off the discussion. To a large part attribution is independent of the relicensing question, it's just that this is a good time to also foster discussion on the issue.
I will oppose any proposal that doesn't specify attribution standards, and I doubt I'm alone in that - they are a matter of how we are interpreting the license. You can't vote on whether to adopt a license without knowing what that license means.
Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we interpret the license. Contributors can be asked to waive rights to content they add to the site (where they are the sole originators of the material, and not merely importing content that has already been published elsewhere) even above and beyond the terms of the specific license, and equally they can be asked to not pursue some rights specified in the license, where such contractual stipulations are legal. Not that it is clear how enforceable such stipulations or waivers would be, if reusers asserted a different understanding of the license and/or the IP laws of their specific jurisdiction.
Those "terms of use" would IMO be largely theoretical and not legally binding in many jurisdictions, and furthermore they would complicate things greatly, instead of (their claimed effect) simplifying things for reusers. Personally I think trying to shoehorn a gloss on what CC-BY-SA has intentionally left ambiguous, would be a mistake. The really simple thing would be to just leave the license as written, and concentrate perhaps in helping to develop the wording of the license itself, rather than forcing the issue in a site-based form for WMF only.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we interpret the license. Contributors can be asked to waive rights to content they add to the site (where they are the sole originators of the material, and not merely importing content that has already been published elsewhere) even above and beyond the terms of the specific license, and equally they can be asked to not pursue some rights specified in the license, where such contractual stipulations are legal. Not that it is clear how enforceable such stipulations or waivers would be, if reusers asserted a different understanding of the license and/or the IP laws of their specific jurisdiction.
But sometimes people will be important content that has already been published elsewhere. At best, we're going to have people having to go through the edit history line by line if they want to use content under GFDL, if we add in addition terms of use people will have to go through line by line if they want to do anything using them too. It's really not an option.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we interpret the license. Contributors can be asked to waive rights to content they add to the site (where they are the sole originators of the material, and not merely importing content that has already been published elsewhere) even above and beyond the terms of the specific license, and equally they can be asked to not pursue some rights specified in the license, where such contractual stipulations are legal. Not that it is clear how enforceable such stipulations or waivers would be, if reusers asserted a different understanding of the license and/or the IP laws of their specific jurisdiction.
But sometimes people will be important content that has already been published elsewhere. At best, we're going to have people having to go through the edit history line by line if they want to use content under GFDL, if we add in addition terms of use people will have to go through line by line if they want to do anything using them too. It's really not an option.
On this issue, I largely agree with Thomas, though I would frame the question differently.
In my opinion, it is incumbent upon us to give examples of how we believe third parties can legally and practically reuse WMF content by exercising rights under CC-BY-SA. If we can't, in our collective wisdom, agree on how third parties ought to be able to accomplish that under the new license, then the license is probably inadequate for our needs.
Now we don't have to cover every way that CC-BY-SA might be used. And we don't have to go through every possible complication that might occur with wiki content. But I do think we must be prepared to give concrete examples of how the license may be used in common applications, and that requires being willing to confront the question of "reasonable" attribution.
If someone comes to us and says: "I want to print a copy of [[France]] in my book. What is a reasonable way to comply with the license?", then we really ought to be able to answer that question. If we can't agree on an acceptable answer to that question under CC-BY-SA, then we probably shouldn't be considering adopting it.
For the record, I am open to the idea that we might well be able to get nearly everyone to agree on a set of "reasonable" usage guidelines consistent with the terms and spirit of CC-BY-SA, but I agree with Thomas that it is important that we address that either before or concurrent with the relicensing effort.
-Robert Rohde
Robert Rohde wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we interpret the license. Contributors can be asked to waive rights to content they add to the site (where they are the sole originators of the material, and not merely importing content that has already been published elsewhere) even above and beyond the terms of the specific license, and equally they can be asked to not pursue some rights specified in the license, where such contractual stipulations are legal. Not that it is clear how enforceable such stipulations or waivers would be, if reusers asserted a different understanding of the license and/or the IP laws of their specific jurisdiction.
But sometimes people will be important content that has already been published elsewhere. At best, we're going to have people having to go through the edit history line by line if they want to use content under GFDL, if we add in addition terms of use people will have to go through line by line if they want to do anything using them too. It's really not an option.
On this issue, I largely agree with Thomas, though I would frame the question differently.
In my opinion, it is incumbent upon us to give examples of how we believe third parties can legally and practically reuse WMF content by exercising rights under CC-BY-SA. If we can't, in our collective wisdom, agree on how third parties ought to be able to accomplish that under the new license, then the license is probably inadequate for our needs.
Personally I can't fully agree. Where no new problems are introduced, and old obstacles are removed, the move can be a good thing in itself, irregardless of the ambiguities that were there before, and still remain.
Now we don't have to cover every way that CC-BY-SA might be used. And we don't have to go through every possible complication that might occur with wiki content. But I do think we must be prepared to give concrete examples of how the license may be used in common applications, and that requires being willing to confront the question of "reasonable" attribution.
For the record I do agree with this fully, but I consider it an issue orthogonal to the licensing issue, though clearly related and dependant. That is to say, the issue needs to be addressed despite us moving to the new license, and it is clearly not addressed simply by us moving to the new license.
If someone comes to us and says: "I want to print a copy of [[France]] in my book. What is a reasonable way to comply with the license?", then we really ought to be able to answer that question. If we can't agree on an acceptable answer to that question under CC-BY-SA, then we probably shouldn't be considering adopting it.
Again I have to record dissent. Do keep in mind that under what we are escaping from under, not even the guardians of that license were able to answer that question. So staying under GFDL is not a real way to dodge the issue.
For the record, I am open to the idea that we might well be able to get nearly everyone to agree on a set of "reasonable" usage guidelines consistent with the terms and spirit of CC-BY-SA, but I agree with Thomas that it is important that we address that either before or concurrent with the relicensing effort.
I disagree quite clearly that it should be a pre-condition.
I don't think keeping an ongoing discussion of the issue concurrently would necessarily be counterproductive.
But when it comes down to brass tacks, for reasonable people it should be enough that CC-BY-SA is a vastly better license for what we do. Period.
Now on the gripping hand, if the real problem you have here is the fear that some time later, after the migration the foundation were to unilaterally express an interpretation of allowable "reasonable" forms of attribution, I would have to regretfully admit that given past form (and sadly, opinions expressed by some influential people in the foundation staff) that is not unfathomable. The only thing I can offer is that that would of course be a new ball game, and the same people waving whiffle-bats around, would be involved there and then, again. I not only think possible, but am reassured that a bad result could not stand, for long. Please trust the good sense of the community being able to countermand the understandable errors of the foundations operatives.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I can't fully agree. Where no new problems are introduced, and old obstacles are removed, the move can be a good thing in itself, irregardless of the ambiguities that were there before, and still remain.
<snip>
I disagree quite clearly that it should be a pre-condition.
I don't think keeping an ongoing discussion of the issue concurrently would necessarily be counterproductive.
But when it comes down to brass tacks, for reasonable people it should be enough that CC-BY-SA is a vastly better license for what we do. Period.
<snip>
Relicensing is not free. It adds a new layer of potential confusion, exposes us to various legal uncertainties, and generates non-trivial hassle (not least of which is the sometimes-but-not-always dual licensing scheme that we would have to keep track of).
I do not consider those issues insurmountable.
However, if we are going to relicense (and ultimately I think we should get away from the GFDL) then it is also important that we get something useful at the end of the day. You say: "CC-BY-SA is a vastly better license for what we do", but that is only true if CC-BY-SA is demonstrably useful. The point I am trying to make is that in order for CC-BY-SA to be useful we should be prepared to concretely show examples of how it can and should be used. If we can't do that, then it largely is not useful.
It is fine to talk abstractly about all the great CC-BY-SA content in the world, and wanting to remove barriers to use, etc. But let's be concrete. How do we use CC-BY-SA to expand our content (for example, when importing content: who gets attributed, where, and how)? How do others use CC-BY-SA when they want to copy from Wikipedia?
I'm hopeful we can answer those questions, but I consider being able to answer them as a clear prerequisite to establishing whether or not CC-BY-SA will actually be useful. Failing that, we would simply be replacing one crummy license that no one knows how to use with another somewhat less crummy license that still no one knows how to use, and that sort of a transaction would be almost entirely a waste of time.
Given the hassle and complexities involved, I'd be very disappointed if at the end of the process we still weren't able to tell people the proper way to use the license.
-Robert Rohde
I totally agree that we should know in advance on how attribution should take place when people are going to reuse our content. A good example on how to handle this might be how the Blender Foundation did that with its 'Elephant's Dream' and 'Big Buck Bunny' projects (even though the license there is CC-BY):
http://orange.blender.org/blog/creative-commons-license-2/
-- Hay
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I can't fully agree. Where no new problems are introduced, and old obstacles are removed, the move can be a good thing in itself, irregardless of the ambiguities that were there before, and still remain.
<snip>
I disagree quite clearly that it should be a pre-condition.
I don't think keeping an ongoing discussion of the issue concurrently would necessarily be counterproductive.
But when it comes down to brass tacks, for reasonable people it should be enough that CC-BY-SA is a vastly better license for what we do. Period.
<snip>
Relicensing is not free. It adds a new layer of potential confusion, exposes us to various legal uncertainties, and generates non-trivial hassle (not least of which is the sometimes-but-not-always dual licensing scheme that we would have to keep track of).
I do not consider those issues insurmountable.
However, if we are going to relicense (and ultimately I think we should get away from the GFDL) then it is also important that we get something useful at the end of the day. You say: "CC-BY-SA is a vastly better license for what we do", but that is only true if CC-BY-SA is demonstrably useful. The point I am trying to make is that in order for CC-BY-SA to be useful we should be prepared to concretely show examples of how it can and should be used. If we can't do that, then it largely is not useful.
It is fine to talk abstractly about all the great CC-BY-SA content in the world, and wanting to remove barriers to use, etc. But let's be concrete. How do we use CC-BY-SA to expand our content (for example, when importing content: who gets attributed, where, and how)? How do others use CC-BY-SA when they want to copy from Wikipedia?
I'm hopeful we can answer those questions, but I consider being able to answer them as a clear prerequisite to establishing whether or not CC-BY-SA will actually be useful. Failing that, we would simply be replacing one crummy license that no one knows how to use with another somewhat less crummy license that still no one knows how to use, and that sort of a transaction would be almost entirely a waste of time.
Given the hassle and complexities involved, I'd be very disappointed if at the end of the process we still weren't able to tell people the proper way to use the license.
-Robert Rohde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Robert Rohde wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I can't fully agree. Where no new problems are introduced, and old obstacles are removed, the move can be a good thing in itself, irregardless of the ambiguities that were there before, and still remain.
<snip>
I disagree quite clearly that it should be a pre-condition.
I don't think keeping an ongoing discussion of the issue concurrently would necessarily be counterproductive.
But when it comes down to brass tacks, for reasonable people it should be enough that CC-BY-SA is a vastly better license for what we do. Period.
<snip>
Relicensing is not free. It adds a new layer of potential confusion, exposes us to various legal uncertainties, and generates non-trivial hassle (not least of which is the sometimes-but-not-always dual licensing scheme that we would have to keep track of).
As RMS himself has said (ipse dixit), moving to CC-BY-SA removes encumbrances that are there for reasons that don't apply to us (massively collaborative projects that aren't a sideshow to computer programs, to put it bluntly). I don't understand what is that hard to understand about that.
There are no legal uncertainties that WMF is exposed to therein. That is simply balderdash. Dual, or for that matter multiple licensing should be viewed as a liberating rather than a hassle generating factor. Come on. We are giving more choice to the reusers, who exactly is being hassled here?
And for the mercy of all that is merciful, why on earth would it be incumbent on the foundation to keep track of anything done about the content, except as a hobby or as a way of making sure the trademark was not diluted (nothing to do with content licensing at all)?
I do not consider those issues insurmountable.
However, if we are going to relicense (and ultimately I think we should get away from the GFDL) then it is also important that we get something useful at the end of the day. You say: "CC-BY-SA is a vastly better license for what we do", but that is only true if CC-BY-SA is demonstrably useful. The point I am trying to make is that in order for CC-BY-SA to be useful we should be prepared to concretely show examples of how it can and should be used. If we can't do that, then it largely is not useful.
No, this is not accurate. Just saying that problems are removed is enough. We are not in the business of giving medical advice, and by the same token we should not be in the business of giving legal advice, even about our own content. Period.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert Rohde wrote:
If someone comes to us and says: "I want to print a copy of [[France]] in my book. What is a reasonable way to comply with the license?", then we really ought to be able to answer that question. If we can't agree on an acceptable answer to that question under CC-BY-SA, then we probably shouldn't be considering adopting it.
Again I have to record dissent. Do keep in mind that under what we are escaping from under, not even the guardians of that license were able to answer that question. So staying under GFDL is not a real way to dodge the issue.
The GFDL has problems which need to be fixed. If the "relicensing" under CC-BY-SA occurs, that's much less likely to happen.
Now on the gripping hand, if the real problem you have
here is the fear that some time later, after the migration the foundation were to unilaterally express an interpretation of allowable "reasonable" forms of attribution, I would have to regretfully admit that given past form (and sadly, opinions expressed by some influential people in the foundation staff) that is not unfathomable.
And then there's that, which is by far my biggest problem with this switch.
I'd much rather see a switch to the GSFDL, with some sort of clause added to that license allowing combining of history lines into a single line listing all significant authors, in the case of an MMORPG (or whatever it is the FSF has chosen for the codeword for Wikipedia).
The only thing I can offer is that
that would of course be a new ball game, and the same people waving whiffle-bats around, would be involved there and then, again. I not only think possible, but am reassured that a bad result could not stand, for long. Please trust the good sense of the community being able to countermand the understandable errors of the foundations operatives.
Rushing to a premature decision is exactly the problem that provided the GFDL in the first place. I see no reason not to take the time to do things right. Even if the August 1, 2009 deadline can't be reached (and I see no reason for this), it can always be extended via a GFDL 1.4. (Or even better, GFDL 2.0 whose draft already contains a GSFDL clause.)
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I'd much rather see a switch to the GSFDL, with some sort of clause added to that license allowing combining of history lines into a single line listing all significant authors, in the case of an MMORPG (or whatever it is the FSF has chosen for the codeword for Wikipedia).
Or perhaps even better, as more generally, in the case of any back-to-back history lines with the same title and publisher (in whatever necessary lawyer-speak).
I have never understood why any substantial contributor to Wikipedia here would feel that attributing the specific text the contributed to an article to them individually if an article is reprinted is to their benefit--given that the text will have been almost entirely replaced, modified, and fragmented? I can understand why the greater of an image might what specific attribution preserved, but for almost all articles, the individual contribution is almost entirely submerged.
To make this more specific, I ask anyone who would pull his text contributions out of Wikipedia is given the choice between doing so and accepting a license without such attribution to indicate their contributions and explain why in context it matters to them. No generalities, please, but specific articles whose history we can examine.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I'd much rather see a switch to the GSFDL, with some sort of clause added to that license allowing combining of history lines into a single line listing all significant authors, in the case of an MMORPG (or whatever it is the FSF has chosen for the codeword for Wikipedia).
Or perhaps even better, as more generally, in the case of any back-to-back history lines with the same title and publisher (in whatever necessary lawyer-speak). _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The GFDL has problems which need to be fixed. If the "relicensing" under CC-BY-SA occurs, that's much less likely to happen.
I spent 3 years trying to get the GFDL fixed. Would you like me to forward you all of the "We'll get back to you later" emails? The sooner we are no longer at the mercy of Richard Stallman, the better. Nothing you can say about the new licensing terms will change my mind about that.
I'd much rather see a switch to the GSFDL, with some sort of clause added to that license allowing combining of history lines into a single line listing all significant authors, in the case of an MMORPG (or whatever it is the FSF has chosen for the codeword for Wikipedia).
See above.
Ryan Kaldari
2009/2/19 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
In my opinion, it is incumbent upon us to give examples of how we believe third parties can legally and practically reuse WMF content by exercising rights under CC-BY-SA. If we can't, in our collective wisdom, agree on how third parties ought to be able to accomplish that under the new license, then the license is probably inadequate for our needs.
Now we don't have to cover every way that CC-BY-SA might be used. And we don't have to go through every possible complication that might occur with wiki content. But I do think we must be prepared to give concrete examples of how the license may be used in common applications, and that requires being willing to confront the question of "reasonable" attribution.
If someone comes to us and says: "I want to print a copy of [[France]] in my book. What is a reasonable way to comply with the license?", then we really ought to be able to answer that question. If we can't agree on an acceptable answer to that question under CC-BY-SA, then we probably shouldn't be considering adopting it.
For the record, I am open to the idea that we might well be able to get nearly everyone to agree on a set of "reasonable" usage guidelines consistent with the terms and spirit of CC-BY-SA, but I agree with Thomas that it is important that we address that either before or concurrent with the relicensing effort.
Excellently put, I agree 100%.
2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we interpret the license. Contributors can be asked to waive rights to content they add to the site (where they are the sole originators of the material, and not merely importing content that has already been published elsewhere) even above and beyond the terms of the specific license, and equally they can be asked to not pursue some rights specified
That can't be done with any content added to wikipedia prior to the license update makeing such waive useless if not actively damaging.
geni wrote:
2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we interpret the license. Contributors can be asked to waive rights to content they add to the site (where they are the sole originators of the material, and not merely importing content that has already been published elsewhere) even above and beyond the terms of the specific license, and equally they can be asked to not pursue some rights specified
That can't be done with any content added to wikipedia prior to the license update makeing such waive useless if not actively damaging.
For the record, I fully agree, as I think could be inferred from the paragraph you truncated from my comment. Naturally those would only apply to only new content and only to new content published for the first time on the WMF site, which really should set alarm bells ringing for anyone that there is something really silly at work there.
Just because I think such silly "terms of use" could be phrased, I don't remotely think they would be a good idea as a matter of ethics, nor as a matter of law. What would really be onerous would be for WMF to require people to negotiate the issue of whether content was merely as per the CC license, or whether additional "terms of use" came into play, if they reused the content.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2009/2/18 Ryan Kaldari kaldari@gmail.com:
As far as anyone not subscribed to this listserv can tell, the proposal to migrate Wikipedia to Creative Commons is dead in the water. Despite requests for an update on-wiki, no updates have come from the Foundation since January. Looking at the archives here, it looks like the last update was from Erik Möller on February 3rd in which he said that he was hoping to "get some survey data this week, and move quickly after that." Was the survey conducted? Is there a new target date for the proposal?
I've been developing the survey "on paper", and I'm testing LimeSurvey with an unrelated survey right now, which seems to be going well. If there are no setbacks, we'll deploy a basic feeler survey next week, asking people to rank the key attribution models we've been talking about here. I don't think it's a _necessary_ requirement before running the vote, but it'll be useful to have it, and we might make some adjustments to the language used in the proposal based on it. Separately, I've reached out to SPI, who have graciously committed to administer the vote as an independent third party. Our goal is still to run and wrap up the vote before the next Board meeting in early April, so the Board can discuss the results at that time. I'll post a quick update if I think this timeline can't be kept.
I also agree with Michael that we won't be able to deal with all possible attribution scenarios adequately yet - IMO all we can achieve is set out basic principles.
2009/2/18 Ryan Kaldari kaldari@gmail.com:
As far as anyone not subscribed to this listserv can tell, the proposal to migrate Wikipedia to Creative Commons is dead in the water. Despite requests for an update on-wiki, no updates have come from the Foundation since January. Looking at the archives here, it looks like the last update was from Erik Möller on February 3rd in which he said that he was hoping to "get some survey data this week, and move quickly after that." Was the survey conducted? Is there a new target date for the proposal?
I've been developing the survey "on paper", and I'm testing LimeSurvey with an unrelated survey right now, which seems to be going well. If there are no setbacks, we'll deploy a basic feeler survey next week, asking people to rank the key attribution models we've been talking about here. I don't think it's a _necessary_ requirement before running the vote, but it'll be useful to have it, and we might make some adjustments to the language used in the proposal based on it. Separately, I've reached out to SPI, who have graciously committed to administer the vote as an independent third party. Our goal is still to run and wrap up the vote before the next Board meeting in early April, so the Board can discuss the results at that time. I'll post a quick update if I think this timeline can't be kept.
I also agree with Michael that we won't be able to deal with all possible attribution scenarios adequately yet - IMO all we can achieve is set out basic principles.
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
As far as anyone not subscribed to this listserv can tell, the proposal to migrate Wikipedia to Creative Commons is dead in the water.
True.
This should be quite an important issue for the Foundation. The time frame is narrow, running out and it looks like the Foundation is blowing it. Let there be no doubt about it: The FSF will not make a GFDL 1.4 any time soon if this opportunity is ignored.
And let me give a few maybe unpleasant ideas:
* Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to - layperson or professional - understood about it. Make a hard switch, as GFDL 1.3 allows. If RMS doesn't like it, too bad.
* Abandon the planned vote, don't ask the community. The issue is too complicated to hand out proper information to the laypersons in the community. Consequently we should not be bothered. Doing otherwise would in the best outcome be dishonest, because we have to decide blindly, or it could result in a disaster. And public vote on issues always means that in the end no one have to take responsibility for it.
* The responsibility for decisions of this magnitude lays with the board. WMF is a non-membership association. Don't even try to evade that responsibility by delegating it to the "community". Accept the responsibility and act accordingly.
Is it possible to have a face-to-face board meeting well before the deadline of the license update? Then invite Mike Godwin and have him prepare a presentation and Q&A session for that meeting. If you deem it necessary, try to invite Lawrence Lessig and Eben Moglin or some of their colleagues, too. Give the board members two more weeks after that to discuss and then they have the final vote. No one else. That is what being on the board is about.
There should be no doubt that it is impossible to inform the community to the level necessary. And *tongue in cheek* don't listen to the hecklers on mailing lists.
Ciao Henning
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net:
- Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to - layperson or professional - understood about it. Make a hard switch, as GFDL 1.3 allows. If RMS doesn't like it, too bad.
It's fairly straightforward if somewhat foolish. It means that any content created on wikipedia and not derived from CC-BY-SA can be used by reuses under either CC-BY-SA or the GFDL.
- Abandon the planned vote, don't ask the community. The issue is too
complicated to hand out proper information to the laypersons in the community. Consequently we should not be bothered. Doing otherwise would in the best outcome be dishonest, because we have to decide blindly, or it could result in a disaster. And public vote on issues always means that in the end no one have to take responsibility for it.
Your problem here is that Erik isn't a lawyer either. If the situation was entirely being handled by Mike Godwin then you would have a case but it isn't.
- The responsibility for decisions of this magnitude lays with the
board. WMF is a non-membership association. Don't even try to evade that responsibility by delegating it to the "community". Accept the responsibility and act accordingly.
The board is not at this point that significantly involved.
geni wrote:
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net:
- The responsibility for decisions of this magnitude lays with the
board. WMF is a non-membership association. Don't even try to evade that responsibility by delegating it to the "community". Accept the responsibility and act accordingly.
The board is not at this point that significantly involved.
But it should be. This decision must be taken on the board level. No one else has a mandate for it.
Ciao Henning
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net:
geni wrote:
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net:
- The responsibility for decisions of this magnitude lays with the
board. WMF is a non-membership association. Don't even try to evade that responsibility by delegating it to the "community". Accept the responsibility and act accordingly.
The board is not at this point that significantly involved.
But it should be. This decision must be taken on the board level. No one else has a mandate for it.
The final decision will be taken by the board, but board are there to serve the community so they are asking the community what we think first. If the board annoys the community too much, the projects will simply cease to exist, so they aren't really in overall charge of much. The legalities and the practicalities are very much at odds with each other.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Henning Schlottmann <h.schlottmann@gmx.net
wrote:
geni wrote:
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net:
- The responsibility for decisions of this magnitude lays with the
board. WMF is a non-membership association. Don't even try to evade that responsibility by delegating it to the "community". Accept the responsibility and act accordingly.
The board is not at this point that significantly involved.
But it should be. This decision must be taken on the board level. No one else has a mandate for it.
How should the board make the decision? Ethical principles? Pragmatic considerations? Whim? Something else?
Pragmatism would certainly involve polling the community, at least, it would if you feel (as WMF's legal council apparently does) that the resolution is legal in the first place.
geni wrote:
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net:
- The responsibility for decisions of this magnitude lays with the
board. WMF is a non-membership association. Don't even try to evade that responsibility by delegating it to the "community". Accept the responsibility and act accordingly.
The board is not at this point that significantly involved.
This point bears belaboring. The switchover of licenses is one those signal events that the boards remit clearly covers, and the staffs does not even nearly begin to encompass. I don't see any evidence that your dire view of the boards involvement is accurate, but should it prove to be true; the conclusions derived thereof by people who care, would not merely be dramatic, but frankly tectonic in nature.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net:
- Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to - layperson or professional - understood about it. Make a hard switch, as GFDL 1.3 allows. If RMS doesn't like it, too bad.
As I understand it, the WMF made an agreement with RMS that the projects would be dual licensed and not switched entirely. I think making that agreement was a mistake, but there's not much that can be done about it now. The WMF shouldn't go back on its word.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net:
- Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to - layperson or professional - understood about it. Make a hard switch, as GFDL 1.3 allows. If RMS doesn't like it, too bad.
As I understand it, the WMF made an agreement with RMS that the projects would be dual licensed and not switched entirely. I think making that agreement was a mistake, but there's not much that can be done about it now. The WMF shouldn't go back on its word.
_
I would be interested to hear what your source was for such a deal between RMS and the WMF.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2009/2/22 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
As I understand it, the WMF made an agreement with RMS that the projects would be dual licensed and not switched entirely. I think making that agreement was a mistake, but there's not much that can be done about it now. The WMF shouldn't go back on its word.
I would be interested to hear what your source was for such a deal between RMS and the WMF.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/047013.html
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/22 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
As I understand it, the WMF made an agreement with RMS that the projects would be dual licensed and not switched entirely. I think making that agreement was a mistake, but there's not much that can be done about it now. The WMF shouldn't go back on its word.
I would be interested to hear what your source was for such a deal between RMS and the WMF.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/047013.html
Is this a written agreement? Why isn't it public? Why haven't the reasons for the agreement been made public?
2009/2/22 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/22 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
As I understand it, the WMF made an agreement with RMS that the projects would be dual licensed and not switched entirely. I think making that agreement was a mistake, but there's not much that can be done about it now. The WMF shouldn't go back on its word.
I would be interested to hear what your source was for such a deal between RMS and the WMF.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/047013.html
Is this a written agreement? Why isn't it public? Why haven't the reasons for the agreement been made public?
I don't know if it's written down or not, but that email makes it fairly public. From what I can tell, it was just a compromise made during the negotiations. The reasons are fairly obvious - the FSF wants people to still be using their license and the WMF felt the need to compromise, so agreed to it.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I don't know if it's written down or not, but that email makes it fairly public. From what I can tell, it was just a compromise made during the negotiations.
I guess, although if it is written I'd be interested in exactly what was promised.
The reasons are fairly obvious - the FSF wants people to still be using their license and the WMF felt the need to compromise, so agreed to it.
If the FSF wants people to still be using their license [for Wikipedia], why would the FSF compromise?
Do you think the FSF is allowing Wikipedia to switch to CC-BY-SA even though they think the GFDL is a better license, for Wikipedia?
There's gotta be more to it than that.
2009/2/22 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
The reasons are fairly obvious - the FSF wants people to still be using their license and the WMF felt the need to compromise, so agreed to it.
If the FSF wants people to still be using their license [for Wikipedia], why would the FSF compromise?
Do you think the FSF is allowing Wikipedia to switch to CC-BY-SA even though they think the GFDL is a better license, for Wikipedia?
There's gotta be more to it than that.
Yeah, I kind of glossed over that point because I wasn't sure. Clearly they want their license to be used, but I'm not sure who by. Presumably by people reusing Wikipedia content. That is, they want people to still have the option of using their license when reusing our content, but they acknowledge that most people would rather us CC-by-SA, which is why they have allowed us to switch.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.netwrote:
- Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to - layperson or professional - understood about it. Make a hard switch, as GFDL 1.3 allows. If RMS doesn't like it, too bad.
What jurisdictions are you licensed to practice law in? Dual licensing at least has the one added benefit that if the switch to CC-BY-SA is deemed invalid in one or more jurisdictions, at least the content might still be distributable under the GFDL.
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.netwrote:
- Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to - layperson or professional - understood about it. Make a hard switch, as GFDL 1.3 allows. If RMS doesn't like it, too bad.
What jurisdictions are you licensed to practice law in? Dual licensing at least has the one added benefit that if the switch to CC-BY-SA is deemed invalid in one or more jurisdictions, at least the content might still be distributable under the GFDL.
heh, I find it amusing that you are questioning somebody else's legal credentials, after signally failing to understand even the most rudimentary legal concepts earlier in other threads...
And your claim for the benefit of GFDL is just simply rubbish.
There is *zero* chance that the switch to CC-BY-SA can be deemed invalid in any jurisdiction worth mentioning, and thus your whole argument is just so much chaff.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.netwrote:
- Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to - layperson or professional - understood about it. Make a hard switch, as GFDL 1.3 allows. If RMS doesn't like it, too bad.
What jurisdictions are you licensed to practice law in? Dual licensing
at
least has the one added benefit that if the switch to CC-BY-SA is deemed invalid in one or more jurisdictions, at least the content might still be distributable under the GFDL.
heh, I find it amusing that you are questioning somebody else's legal credentials, after signally failing to understand even the most rudimentary legal concepts earlier in other threads...
I'm not sure what supposed "signal failure to understand" you're referring to, but it certainly doesn't preclude me from asking a simple question. And if by "questioning" you meant something other than "asking questions about", well, I never did that in the first place.
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.netwrote:
- Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to - layperson or professional - understood about it. Make a hard switch, as GFDL 1.3 allows. If RMS doesn't like it, too bad.
What jurisdictions are you licensed to practice law in? Dual licensing
at
least has the one added benefit that if the switch to CC-BY-SA is deemed invalid in one or more jurisdictions, at least the content might still be distributable under the GFDL.
heh, I find it amusing that you are questioning somebody else's legal credentials, after signally failing to understand even the most rudimentary legal concepts earlier in other threads...
I'm not sure what supposed "signal failure to understand" you're referring to, but it certainly doesn't preclude me from asking a simple question. And if by "questioning" you meant something other than "asking questions about", well, I never did that in the first place. _______________________________________________
Well, your posited statement that there could be jurisdictions where the switch could be invalid is still utterly baseless.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, your posited statement that there could be jurisdictions where the switch could be invalid is still utterly baseless.
I'd be happy to discuss in detail my feeling on the validity of "the switch" in another forum, but I think it would be far too involved for this forum. In any case, the burden of showing the grant of a valid license is on the licensee. If anyone feels they can connect the dots from a contribution being made on Wikipedia and that contribution being licensed under CC-BY-SA, feel free. I don't believe "the switch" is valid in any jurisdictions, period.
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
- Abandon the planned vote, don't ask the community. The issue is too
complicated to hand out proper information to the laypersons in the community. Consequently we should not be bothered. Doing otherwise would in the best outcome be dishonest, because we have to decide blindly, or it could result in a disaster. And public vote on issues always means that in the end no one have to take responsibility for it.
I can't agree strongly enough. This is what the board is there for.
- The responsibility for decisions of this magnitude lays with the
board. WMF is a non-membership association. Don't even try to evade that responsibility by delegating it to the "community". Accept the responsibility and act accordingly.
Indeed. That is most cogently put, and right on the mark.
There should be no doubt that it is impossible to inform the community to the level necessary. And *tongue in cheek* don't listen to the hecklers on mailing lists.
As much as I agree with the above points you make so starkly, this is one thing I will have to disagree with you on. I would urge the board to keep in mind all the (even emotive and not too logical) views expressed on the mailing list. I think between us all, we have covered most of the issues that need to be considered. I don't think there has been anyone here that has not contributed something worth pondering of the board, when it does make its mind up. But of course, that said; the board should make its mind up. Where do we go from here. That is the issue, and it has to be addressed.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org