All -
As has been pointed out, the Free Software Foundation has now released version 1.3 of the GNU Free Documentation License, which is the standard text license used by all Wikimedia Foundation projects with the exception of Wikinews. The updated license text can be found here: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
[If you are still seeing version 1.2 on that URL, you may need to clear your browser cache.]
We are very grateful to the Free Software Foundation for working with us to develop this re-licensing language.
The only change is the addition of section 11, "Relicensing". This section permits "massive multi-author collaboration websites" (i.e. wikis and wiki-like websites) to relicense GFDL content to the CC-BY-SA, under two key constraints:
* Newly added externally originating GFDL content cannot be relicensed after November 1, 2008. (In other words, we should stop importing GFDL content from non-Wikimedia sources, unless they plan to switch as well. I believe Wikia is planning to switch, but will confirm that shortly. Please feel free to begin reaching out to other relevant GFDL sources.)
* The relicensing clause will expire on August 1, 2009.
Relicensing can only be done by the operator of such a website, not by any other party. So the Wikimedia Foundation can choose to re-license Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc., but no other party can. We will be able to do so because most GFDL-licensed content implicitly or explicitly permits re-use under "any later version" of the GFDL.
== Why wasn't this license available for review earlier? ==
The restriction on externally originating FDL content is intended to prevent bulk-import and bulk-relicensing of FDL content from external sources. This is intended to protect the autonomy of site operators in making a re-licensing decision, and to prevent FDL-licensed software documentation from being re-licensed without the permission of the authors. This was a key condition for the Free Software Foundation to agree to this change. While an earlier draft was published, the specifics of the migration process have been negotiated privately in order to not allow for such systematic bulk-relicensing by interested third parties.
== What's next? ==
* Later this month, we will post a re-licensing proposal for all Wikimedia wikis which are currently licensed under the GFDL. It will be collaboratively developed on meta.wiki and I will announce it here. This re-licensing proposal will include a simplified dual-licensing proposition, under which content will continue to be indefinitely available under GFDL, except for articles which include CC-BY-SA-only additions from external sources. (The terms of service, under this proposal, will be modified to require dual-licensing permission for any new changes.)
It will be the obligation of re-users to validate whether an article includes CC-BY-SA-only changes -- dual licensing should not be a burden on editors. This is also not intended to be bidirectional, i.e., merging in GFDL-only text will not be possible.
We _will_ propose to continue to permit GFDL 1.2-only media uploads for the forseeable future, to address concerns regarding strong and weak copyleft, until such concerns are fully resolved to the satisfaction of community members. However, GFDL 1.2-or-later media are expected to be migrated to CC-BY-SA under this proposal. It is expected that we will launch a community-wide referendum on this proposal, where a majority will constitute sufficient support for re-licensing.
* As a heads up, communities should be more careful with importing external FDL content, unless they know for sure that it will be migrated to CC-BY-SA in the near future. This will not affect Wikimedia-internal copying transactions, as either all or no GFDL-licensed Wikimedia wikis will be switched to CC-BY-SA. If some GFDL 1.2 content that cannot be migrated later is imported by accident, that should not present any great difficulty -- we will simply remove it as we would remove any other problematic copyrighted content.
More information will follow later this month as we develop the re-licensing proposal. Let me know if you have any immediate questions.
Thanks, Erik
A question about the format of the proposal to implement the new license on all Wikimedia projects. Will a local consensus be necessary for the migration of any projects, or simply the Wikimedia community-wide consensus as demonstrated by a survey on meta? What is the contingency plan for when the meta community agrees to the migration, but specific projects have a consensus that is strongly in opposition? I don't see that being a common outcome, but it does seem possible.
Thanks for your work on this, Erik, and for being very responsive to questions and criticism.
Nathan
2008/11/3 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
A question about the format of the proposal to implement the new license on all Wikimedia projects. Will a local consensus be necessary for the migration of any projects, or simply the Wikimedia community-wide consensus as demonstrated by a survey on meta? What is the contingency plan for when the meta community agrees to the migration, but specific projects have a consensus that is strongly in opposition?
If there is ever one area where it's necessary to make a decision that applies equally for all projects & languages, this, in my opinion, is it. We do not want to end up in a situation where content from German can no longer be imported into English, etc. So, I think it makes sense to propose this as a Wikimedia-wide community referendum. We can try to address any strong objections from specific communities through the process of developing the referendum, but at the end of the day, some communities may be unhappy with the decision (just as some communities were initially unhappy with the change to a standardized logo).
I know that some people have expressed legal reservations about _any_ kind of license update or migration, and we will try to address this in the proposal.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
== Why wasn't this license available for review earlier? ==
The restriction on externally originating FDL content is intended to prevent bulk-import and bulk-relicensing of FDL content from external sources. This is intended to protect the autonomy of site operators in making a re-licensing decision, and to prevent FDL-licensed software documentation from being re-licensed without the permission of the authors. This was a key condition for the Free Software Foundation to agree to this change.
[snip]
Substantially similar language was in a FDL draft posted to the FSF site in September 2006. (http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gfdl-draft-1.html)
One of the results was some people importing the GNU manuals into a wiki. Though I suppose the "invariant sections" and "cover texts" limitations remained that particular point is still addresed this point.
As such the above FAQ entry is incorrect.
- Later this month, we will post a re-licensing proposal for all
Wikimedia wikis which are currently licensed under the GFDL. It will be collaboratively developed on meta.wiki and I will announce it here. This re-licensing proposal will include a simplified dual-licensing proposition, under which content will continue to be indefinitely available under GFDL, except for articles which include CC-BY-SA-only additions from external sources. (The terms of service, under this proposal, will be modified to require dual-licensing permission for any new changes.)
What's the plan for making a final decision? There will probably be too many people involved to ever achieve anything close to a consensus. Are you planning a referendum?
It will be the obligation of re-users to validate whether an article includes CC-BY-SA-only changes -- dual licensing should not be a burden on editors. This is also not intended to be bidirectional, i.e., merging in GFDL-only text will not be possible.
How will that work? If the terms of service have been modified, how does one upload CC-BY-SA only content without agreeing to those terms of service? There needs to be some way for re-users to know what license things are under, you can't just leave it to them since it's impossible for them to find out if it doesn't say anywhere.
2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
What's the plan for making a final decision? There will probably be too many people involved to ever achieve anything close to a consensus. Are you planning a referendum?
Yes. Note that the Board resolution on re-licensing specifically referred to a vote as a decision-making tool.
It will be the obligation of re-users to validate whether an article includes CC-BY-SA-only changes -- dual licensing should not be a burden on editors. This is also not intended to be bidirectional, i.e., merging in GFDL-only text will not be possible.
How will that work? If the terms of service have been modified, how does one upload CC-BY-SA only content without agreeing to those terms of service?
We'll just have to find a good wording, e.g. one that requires dual-licensing of CC-BA-SA works contributed by the copyright holder.
There needs to be some way for re-users to know what license things are under, you can't just leave it to them since it's impossible for them to find out if it doesn't say anywhere.
Any CC-BY-SA import from an external source requires attribution, so we may use this as an opportunity to standardize how we want to attribute externally imported content. However, I think we need to keep the obligations absolutely minimal: an author should not have to understand the meaning of dual-licensing in order to be able to import CC-BY-SA-only content.
Any CC-BY-SA import from an external source requires attribution, so we may use this as an opportunity to standardize how we want to attribute externally imported content.
Sounds like a plan.
However, I think we need to keep the obligations absolutely minimal: an author should not have to understand the meaning of dual-licensing in order to be able to import CC-BY-SA-only content.
If possible, that would be great, but I'm not sure it will be. The contributor needs to tell everyone else what license the content is under (that's a requirement of both CC-BY-SA and GFDL, I think, and is also required by common sense), that requires a certain level of understanding.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
- Later this month, we will post a re-licensing proposal for all
Wikimedia wikis which are currently licensed under the GFDL. It will be collaboratively developed on meta.wiki and I will announce it here. This re-licensing proposal will include a simplified dual-licensing proposition, under which content will continue to be indefinitely available under GFDL, except for articles which include CC-BY-SA-only additions from external sources. (The terms of service, under this proposal, will be modified to require dual-licensing permission for any new changes.)
It will be the obligation of re-users to validate whether an article includes CC-BY-SA-only changes -- dual licensing should not be a burden on editors. This is also not intended to be bidirectional, i.e., merging in GFDL-only text will not be possible.
The idea of dual licensing is great. However, CC-BY-SA-only additions complicate situation a lot: * Sites which adopts the same policy as Wikipedia would have significant problems in detecting what is dual licensed and what is CC-BY-SA-only. * Sites which stay at GFDL (and a lot of wikis are GFDL just because of Wikipedia compatibility; while it is fairly possible that they wouldn't be able to switch from various reasons) would have much more problems. * Would any contributor be able to say "my contributions are licensed just under CC-BY-SA"? (Out of incorporated external works.) If so, this would make previous two possibilities practically impossible. Then, it would be much more clear to license content just under CC-BY-SA.
2008/11/3 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
The idea of dual licensing is great. However, CC-BY-SA-only additions complicate situation a lot
Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is one of the primary motivations for re-licensing in the first place.
- Would any contributor be able to say "my contributions are licensed
just under CC-BY-SA"? (Out of incorporated external works.)
No.
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/11/3 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
The idea of dual licensing is great. However, CC-BY-SA-only additions complicate situation a lot
Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is one of the primary motivations for re-licensing in the first place.
I'd say allowing people to re-use our content under CC-BY-SA is the primary reason. Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is an added bonus (is there really much out there that we would want to use? There's some, sure, but I doubt there's enough to be worth the hassle of relicensing for it).
2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is one of the primary motivations for re-licensing in the first place.
I'd say allowing people to re-use our content under CC-BY-SA is the primary reason. Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is an added bonus (is there really much out there that we would want to use? There's some, sure, but I doubt there's enough to be worth the hassle of relicensing for it).
There's lots, and many large projects have chosen to adopt CC-BY-SA as a standard license:
http://www.eoearth.org/ http://www.eofcosmos.org/ http://eol.org/ (for some content) http://wikieducator.org/ , e.g. cool stuff like http://wikieducator.org/Biology_in_elementary_schools http://en.citizendium.org/
and countless "open learning / open education" projects. Much of it may be more relevant for Wikibooks / Wikiversity, but there's nevertheless large amounts of textual content under CC-BY-SA out there that we may want to use. And that's just the English language world.
The proposed re-licensing solution is meant to make it frictionless to get stuff out of WP into these projects and vice versa. Any solution that doesn't do so misses the point. IMO long-term FDL compatibility is the "added bonus".
For the copyright geeks, I would like to point out that in addition to the new section 11 there were also substantial changes to section 9 (the termination clauses) in this new version. Other minor changes includes a "proxy" clause in section 10 and a new definition for "publisher" in section 1.
-Robert Rohde
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/11/3 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
The idea of dual licensing is great. However, CC-BY-SA-only additions complicate situation a lot
Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is one of the primary motivations for re-licensing in the first place.
I'd say allowing people to re-use our content under CC-BY-SA is the primary reason. Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is an added bonus (is there really much out there that we would want to use? There's some, sure, but I doubt there's enough to be worth the hassle of relicensing for it).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/11/3 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
The idea of dual licensing is great. However, CC-BY-SA-only additions complicate situation a lot
Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is one of the primary motivations for re-licensing in the first place.
I'd say allowing people to re-use our content under CC-BY-SA is the primary reason. Being able to import CC-BY-SA content is an added bonus (is there really much out there that we would want to use? There's some, sure, but I doubt there's enough to be worth the hassle of relicensing for it).
I think that the number of CC-BY-SA books is significant enough for incorporation them into Wikibooks. Wikiversity may profit from CC-BY-SA, too.
However, counting the fact that some WBs and WVs are CC-BY-SA-only, wouldn't it be more reasonable to switch those two projects to CC-BY-SA only and to leave *Wikipedia* as straight dual-licensed? Generally, Wikipedia content is the most important production place for encyclopedic work, while other projects are not so. This means that Wikipedia should be able to give as more as possible, while other projects should calculate what is the best for them.
2008/11/3 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
However, counting the fact that some WBs and WVs are CC-BY-SA-only, wouldn't it be more reasonable to switch those two projects to CC-BY-SA only and to leave *Wikipedia* as straight dual-licensed?
I think that would be hugely problematic. The goal here is to eliminate key compatibility barriers, not to perpetuate them.
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
- Later this month, we will post a re-licensing proposal for all
Wikimedia wikis which are currently licensed under the GFDL. It will be collaboratively developed on meta.wiki and I will announce it here. This re-licensing proposal will include a simplified dual-licensing proposition, under which content will continue to be indefinitely available under GFDL, except for articles which include CC-BY-SA-only additions from external sources. (The terms of service, under this proposal, will be modified to require dual-licensing permission for any new changes.)
Not remotely acceptable. We accept duel licensing of images because we already have to carry a significant overhead in terms of juggling copyright conditions due to other causes. You want to add that situation to text? That is not a good idea. Duel licenses are at best a necessary evil. There is no benefit in extending the situation to text. A clean switchover must be the objective.
We _will_ propose to continue to permit GFDL 1.2-only media uploads for the forseeable future, to address concerns regarding strong and weak copyleft, until such concerns are fully resolved to the satisfaction of community members
No. We don't need to make the copyright situation more complex in fact we should be taking the opportunity to simplify it. As part of the switch over we should be freezeing all uploads of all images not under directly CC-BY-SA compatible licenses (FAL GFDL 1.2 only GPL LGPL).
FAL and GFDL 1.2 only are not uploaded in large enough amounts that we cannot absorb the loss.
GPL and LGPL are more of a problem
The strong weak copyright issues is best solved through negotiations with CC. That said with the migration of wikipedia to CC-BY-SA pretty much putting CC-BY-SA in the position of the grand unified free license it is likely that any opposition to a strong copyleft position will be reduced.
2008/11/3 geni geniice@gmail.com:
Not remotely acceptable. We accept duel licensing of images because we already have to carry a significant overhead in terms of juggling copyright conditions due to other causes. You want to add that situation to text? That is not a good idea. Duel licenses are at best a necessary evil. There is no benefit in extending the situation to text. A clean switchover must be the objective.
While I tend to agree with you, the FSF has required us to agree to these compromise dual licensing terms before releasing the FDL 1.3. This is a separate agreement between the FSF and WMF. We'll proceed to a referendum under these terms.
I do believe that this dual-licensing compromise should ideally allow both dual-licensing proponents and dual-licensing opponents to support the switch. A compromise always will leave everyone somewhat unhappy. So I hope that neither side will dig their feet in and help us move forward. We can revisit the dual-licensing situation in a year or two together with the FSF and see if it still is needed.
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/11/3 geni geniice@gmail.com:
Not remotely acceptable. We accept duel licensing of images because we already have to carry a significant overhead in terms of juggling copyright conditions due to other causes. You want to add that situation to text? That is not a good idea. Duel licenses are at best a necessary evil. There is no benefit in extending the situation to text. A clean switchover must be the objective.
While I tend to agree with you, the FSF has required us to agree to these compromise dual licensing terms before releasing the FDL 1.3. This is a separate agreement between the FSF and WMF. We'll proceed to a referendum under these terms.
I'm not sure it was wise of the WMF to make that kind of commitment without consulting the community. Allowing an external body to dictate procedure on Wikimedia projects is a big deal that I expect a large portion of the community to be very unhappy with. There may not really have been an alternative if FSF weren't willing to budge (public pressure might have helped there - if there were NDAs then the mistake was in signing them), but the community should still have been consulted.
2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
I'm not sure it was wise of the WMF to make that kind of commitment without consulting the community. Allowing an external body to dictate procedure on Wikimedia projects is a big deal that I expect a large portion of the community to be very unhappy with.
We've already made a commitment that the entire decision will be validated by means of referendum. To a certain extent, you'll have to trust WMF to negotiate on your behalf. We think that this proposal should and will reflect an acceptable compromise; if you don't agree, please tell us why now.
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
I'm not sure it was wise of the WMF to make that kind of commitment without consulting the community. Allowing an external body to dictate procedure on Wikimedia projects is a big deal that I expect a large portion of the community to be very unhappy with.
We've already made a commitment that the entire decision will be validated by means of referendum. To a certain extent, you'll have to trust WMF to negotiate on your behalf. We think that this proposal should and will reflect an acceptable compromise; if you don't agree, please tell us why now.
When negotiating on someone's behalf there are generally bounds to what you can and can't agree to. Obviously there were no explicit decisions on what those bounds were, but I'm not sure such an agreement was within what the community would consider reasonable bounds (although maybe it's just me, we'll see). While there will be a referendum, you have significantly restricted our options. The fact that the WMF didn't even attempt to apply public pressure to the FSF suggests to me that you didn't do a very good job of negotiating on our behalf. It's too late now, though, I guess, so we'll just have to settle for your compromise.
2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
The fact that the WMF didn't even attempt to apply public pressure to the FSF suggests to me that you didn't do a very good job of negotiating on our behalf.
Under certain circumstances, that's exactly what we would have done, but obviously such a strategy carries in it inherent risks that the entire process will fail. Richard originally asked us for conditions we could not accept; we negotiated to modify them, and the aforementioned agreement represents a compromise.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
The fact that the WMF didn't even attempt to apply public pressure to the
FSF
suggests to me that you didn't do a very good job of negotiating on our behalf.
Under certain circumstances, that's exactly what we would have done, but obviously such a strategy carries in it inherent risks that the entire process will fail. Richard originally asked us for conditions we could not accept; we negotiated to modify them, and the aforementioned agreement represents a compromise. -- 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
Just out of curiosity, how does this apply to miscellaneous projects that don't fall under the normal "content" wikis (all the private wikis are GFDL, for example).
Also, MW.org? The Help: namespace is licensed under PD, so the relicensing can't touch that.
-Chad
2008/11/3 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
Just out of curiosity, how does this apply to miscellaneous projects that don't fall under the normal "content" wikis (all the private wikis are GFDL, for example).
Interesting question. We might keep the private ones GFDL, or switch them to a similar dual-licensing arrangement with the permission of the contributors. Projects not currently using GFDL will be unaffected.
Also, MW.org? The Help: namespace is licensed under PD, so the relicensing can't touch that.
Yes, it won't touch that. PD is a good thing. :-)
Chad wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
The fact that the WMF didn't even attempt to apply public pressure to the
FSF
suggests to me that you didn't do a very good job of negotiating on our behalf.
Under certain circumstances, that's exactly what we would have done, but obviously such a strategy carries in it inherent risks that the entire process will fail. Richard originally asked us for conditions we could not accept; we negotiated to modify them, and the aforementioned agreement represents a compromise. -- 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
Just out of curiosity, how does this apply to miscellaneous projects that don't fall under the normal "content" wikis (all the private wikis are GFDL, for example).
Are they? I don't know about the others, but the OTRS-wiki is specifically not GFDL. "Content is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation"
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Chad wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
The fact that the WMF didn't even attempt to apply public pressure to
the
FSF
suggests to me that you didn't do a very good job of negotiating on our behalf.
Under certain circumstances, that's exactly what we would have done, but obviously such a strategy carries in it inherent risks that the entire process will fail. Richard originally asked us for conditions we could not accept; we negotiated to modify them, and the aforementioned agreement represents a compromise. -- 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
Just out of curiosity, how does this apply to miscellaneous projects that don't fall under the normal "content" wikis (all the private wikis are GFDL,
for
example).
Are they? I don't know about the others, but the OTRS-wiki is specifically not GFDL. "Content is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation"
-- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Assumed they were...proven wrong.
-Chad
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
The fact that the WMF didn't even attempt to apply public pressure to the FSF suggests to me that you didn't do a very good job of negotiating on our behalf.
Under certain circumstances, that's exactly what we would have done, but obviously such a strategy carries in it inherent risks that the entire process will fail. Richard originally asked us for conditions we could not accept; we negotiated to modify them, and the aforementioned agreement represents a compromise.
So if the community decides dual-licensing is dumb, is that the end of it? GFDL Forever?
-Robert Rohde
2008/11/3 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
So if the community decides dual-licensing is dumb, is that the end of it? GFDL Forever?
Not necessarily - though it would certainly slow things down again. Generally these negotiations have been very slow, as you may have noticed.
I will note that the reason the FSF has conditionally asked us for dual licensing in the first place is that some Wikipedians have privately asked them to. These same Wikipedians would likely object to an alternative course of action without any dual licensing, and so it may put us in the exact same position with a different faction opposing a switch. Note how Milos expressed disapproval of even the compromise we've come up with, and suggested unrestricted dual-licensing for Wikipedia instead.
Again, it is my belief that the current proposal reflects a compromise of different views that also exist within the Wikipedia community, and unless there are any major bugs in it, it makes sense to me to adopt it. The biggest risk I see with the dual-licensing approach we're proposing is that it would allow people to take stuff under GFDL 1.3 only and repurpose it in ways in which we couldn't re-import it. They would, however, be bound under the more rigid conditions of the GFDL when doing so, so I think it's generally unlikely that this would happen. This is a problem we're aware of and that, in our view, is not sufficient reason to not implement the proposed compromise. If there are other problems, I would like to hear about them.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
So if the community decides dual-licensing is dumb, is that the end of it? GFDL Forever?
In the case that the community says so, then we probably would be stuck forever, yes. However, I have a hard time seeing that the community would be against it, unless some huge fly was found in the ointment that nobody's thought about yet.
I know that the en.wikibooks community has been begging for this for a while, going so far as to try a homebrew dual-licensing scheme on a per-book basis. Needless to say it didn't work out well, but there is still plenty of sentiment that this is a way we want to go as a community. I know other communities have had plenty of complaints about interoperability with CC-BY-SA content as well, and I can't imagine that nit-pickery from the habitual naysayers is going to stop this train.
If I were a betting man, I would put my money on some kind of migration being approved and implemented before August 2009, especially if the community at large is given a fair say on the issue.
--Andrew Whitworth
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/11/3 geni geniice@gmail.com: While I tend to agree with you, the FSF has required us to agree to these compromise dual licensing terms before releasing the FDL 1.3. This is a separate agreement between the FSF and WMF. We'll proceed to a referendum under these terms.
What are the terms of the agreement? There are various ways of implementing duel licensing and I would like to know which ones are legit.
2008/11/3 geni geniice@gmail.com:
What are the terms of the agreement? There are various ways of implementing duel licensing and I would like to know which ones are legit.
[begin quote from Richard] * ALL contributors agree to the following:
Wikipedia can release their newly written text under both GFDL and CC-BY-SA in parallel. However, if they imported any external material that's available under CC-BY-SA and not under GFDL, Wikipedia is bound by that.
* All old revisions are released under GFDL | CC-BY-SA.
* All new revisions are released with this license statement:
This page is released under CC-BY-SA. Depending on its editing history, it MAY also be available under the GFDL; see [link] for how to determine that. [end quote from Richard]
This is not set in stone; we can modify some aspects of it in consultation with FSF as long as the overall spirit remains intact.
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/11/3 geni geniice@gmail.com:
What are the terms of the agreement? There are various ways of implementing duel licensing and I would like to know which ones are legit.
[begin quote from Richard]
- ALL contributors agree to the following:
Wikipedia can release their newly written text under both GFDL and CC-BY-SA in parallel. However, if they imported any external material that's available under CC-BY-SA and not under GFDL, Wikipedia is bound by that.
All old revisions are released under GFDL | CC-BY-SA.
All new revisions are released with this license statement:
This page is released under CC-BY-SA. Depending on its editing history, it MAY also be available under the GFDL; see [link] for how to determine that. [end quote from Richard]
This is not set in stone; we can modify some aspects of it in consultation with FSF as long as the overall spirit remains intact. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
I believe it is possible to build an acceptable duel licensing setup within the wording of the current agreement.
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2008/11/3 geni geniice@gmail.com:
What are the terms of the agreement? There are various ways of implementing duel licensing and I would like to know which ones are legit.
[begin quote from Richard]
- ALL contributors agree to the following:
Wikipedia can release their newly written text under both GFDL and CC-BY-SA in parallel. However, if they imported any external material that's available under CC-BY-SA and not under GFDL, Wikipedia is bound by that.
True but pretty much a given
- All old revisions are released under GFDL | CC-BY-SA.
If we are to switch this has to be the case yes (to be exact GFDL 1.?-.3)
- All new revisions are released with this license statement:
This page is released under CC-BY-SA. Depending on its editing history, it MAY also be available under the GFDL; see [link] for how to determine that. [end quote from Richard]
This allows us to not duel license anything added to wikipedia after the switchover so if the switchover is november 30 you can determine if the article is duel licensed by seeing it has been edited post Nov 30 2008. That would appear to simplify matters.
- All new revisions are released with this license statement:
This page is released under CC-BY-SA. Depending on its editing history, it MAY also be available under the GFDL; see [link] for how to determine that. [end quote from Richard]
This allows us to not duel license anything added to wikipedia after the switchover so if the switchover is november 30 you can determine if the article is duel licensed by seeing it has been edited post Nov 30 2008. That would appear to simplify matters.
So you're suggesting we dual license everything written before the switchover and then license everything after that under just CC-BY-SA? That would be nice, but I think it contradicts the agreement with Richard:
"* ALL contributors agree to the following:
Wikipedia can release their newly written text under both GFDL and CC-BY-SA in parallel. However, if they imported any external material that's available under CC-BY-SA and not under GFDL, Wikipedia is bound by that."
That specifies "newly written text", which I interpret to mean text written after the switchover. Although, interestingly it says "can" not "must", so contributors have to give WMF permission to release it under GFDL but WMF can choose not to. I'm not sure that's the intended meaning... (I'm also unsure of the legality of "Wikipedia can release..." compared to to more usual "By clicking submit *you* are releasing..." [assuming "Wikipedia" actually means "WMF", obviously "Wikipedia" can't release anything since it's just a website and not a legal entity].) If that is the intended meaning (which would be strange, since it doesn't actually restrict WMF in any meaningful way), then your idea should work.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/11/3 geni geniice@gmail.com:
What are the terms of the agreement? There are various ways of implementing duel licensing and I would like to know which ones are legit.
[begin quote from Richard]
- ALL contributors agree to the following:
Wikipedia can release their newly written text under both GFDL and CC-BY-SA in parallel. However, if they imported any external material that's available under CC-BY-SA and not under GFDL, Wikipedia is bound by that.
All old revisions are released under GFDL | CC-BY-SA.
All new revisions are released with this license statement:
This page is released under CC-BY-SA. Depending on its editing history, it MAY also be available under the GFDL; see [link] for how to determine that. [end quote from Richard]
The sometimes, sort of, dual licensing provisions be advocated here strikes me as impractical.
As I understand it, and correct me if I am mistaken, the goal is to dual license all existing content and all future content directly created by Wikipedians.
However, in addition, authors would be allowed to incorporate pre-existing CC-BY-SA content into Wikipedia articles, in which case the resulting work would be marked CC-BY-SA-only from that point forward. Is that correct?
That appears to require that Wikipedians keep track of which content is dual licensed and which is CC-BY-SA-only. To really do this correctly, people would have to check and flag licenses every time text is moved from one article to another. Initially it would be easy since there would be little SA-only content, but eventually it would grow to be a common issue. In rare cases, SA-only templates could contaminate many articles at once (not that we do a good job with template attribution to begin with). Do portals and other pages become SA-only when they excerpt from SA-only articles, etc.? Lots of opportunities for messing interactions.
Doing a good job for reusers would also mean having licensing incompatibilities flagged in an obvious way. Probably this needs to integrated into Mediawiki to change the copyright notices on a per article basis as necessary.
Most people ignore licensing issues, and so I'm sure any SA-only issue will likely get ignored as well. Either people will treat everything as dual, or they will treat everything as SA-only. Probably that's okay 99.9% of the time, but it still feels like we are being set up with a system that we are unlikely to ever manage well.
If there were a choice available, I'd prefer that all text have the same license (or set of licenses) rather than saddle ourselves with a system that requires internal tracking.
-Robert Rohde
Robert Rohde wrote:
Doing a good job for reusers would also mean having licensing incompatibilities flagged in an obvious way. Probably this needs to integrated into Mediawiki to change the copyright notices on a per article basis as necessary.
Most people ignore licensing issues, and so I'm sure any SA-only issue will likely get ignored as well. Either people will treat everything as dual, or they will treat everything as SA-only. Probably that's okay 99.9% of the time, but it still feels like we are being set up with a system that we are unlikely to ever manage well.
If there were a choice available, I'd prefer that all text have the same license (or set of licenses) rather than saddle ourselves with a system that requires internal tracking.
The FAQ seems to say we explicitly will not be doing any of this license tracking: "It will be the obligation of re-users to validate whether an article includes CC-BY-SA-only changes -- dual licensing should not be a burden on editors. This is also not intended to be bidirectional, i.e., merging in GFDL-only text will not be possible."
In practice, that means that everything will probably need to be treated as SA-only, unless a reuser wants to validate for themselves that they can legitimately use it under the GFDL. I personally see that as a feature, but your mileage may vary. =] In particular, having significant amounts of content dual-licensed makes it exceedingly easy for reusers to poison-pill their derived works so we can't re-merge their changes back into Wikipedia, by choosing only the GFDL for their derived works. Of course, that in itself would be no reason to reject the agreement, because the current situation is just as bad: the single-licensed GFDL is inherently designed to permit poison pills via the addition of invariant sections.
-Mark
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The FAQ seems to say we explicitly will not be doing any of this license tracking: "It will be the obligation of re-users to validate whether an article includes CC-BY-SA-only changes -- dual licensing should not be a burden on editors. This is also not intended to be bidirectional, i.e., merging in GFDL-only text will not be possible."
In practice, that means that everything will probably need to be treated as SA-only, unless a reuser wants to validate for themselves that they can legitimately use it under the GFDL. I personally see that as a feature, but your mileage may vary. =] In particular, having significant amounts of content dual-licensed makes it exceedingly easy for reusers to poison-pill their derived works so we can't re-merge their changes back into Wikipedia, by choosing only the GFDL for their derived works. Of course, that in itself would be no reason to reject the agreement, because the current situation is just as bad: the single-licensed GFDL is inherently designed to permit poison pills via the addition of invariant sections.
As far as I am able to understand, it wouldn't be so. Any SA-only contribution has to be marked because of SA terms. So, in the case of importing article from the Encyclopedia of Earth, there will be a note "This article is imported from the Encyclopedia of Earth under the terms of CC-BY-SA xx.xx". Also, I am sure that lists of sources at the projects will have information about the terms of usage. So, every page will be visibly marked as CC-BY-SA-only or it will be GFDL/CC-BY-SA if not marked with a particular attribution tag.
However, it is true that in the future there will be a lot of CC-BY-SA-only articles and that re-users will have to analyze which parts of the article are CC-BY-SA-only if they are willing to incorporate it at GFDL-only document.
The FAQ seems to say we explicitly will not be doing any of this license tracking: "It will be the obligation of re-users to validate whether an article includes CC-BY-SA-only changes -- dual licensing should not be a burden on editors. This is also not intended to be bidirectional, i.e., merging in GFDL-only text will not be possible."
In practice, that means that everything will probably need to be treated as SA-only, unless a reuser wants to validate for themselves that they can legitimately use it under the GFDL. I personally see that as a feature, but your mileage may vary. =] In particular, having significant amounts of content dual-licensed makes it exceedingly easy for reusers to poison-pill their derived works so we can't re-merge their changes back into Wikipedia, by choosing only the GFDL for their derived works. Of course, that in itself would be no reason to reject the agreement, because the current situation is just as bad: the single-licensed GFDL is inherently designed to permit poison pills via the addition of invariant sections.
The way I see it, that's equivalent to not being dual licensed at all, since there is no way for a re-user to know what licenses things are under unless we tell them. (However, I think we need to tell them in order to comply with the licenses ourselves, so the whole thing is moot.)
2008/11/4 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/11/3 geni geniice@gmail.com:
What are the terms of the agreement? There are various ways of implementing duel licensing and I would like to know which ones are legit.
[begin quote from Richard]
- ALL contributors agree to the following:
Wikipedia can release their newly written text under both GFDL and CC-BY-SA in parallel. However, if they imported any external material that's available under CC-BY-SA and not under GFDL, Wikipedia is bound by that.
All old revisions are released under GFDL | CC-BY-SA.
All new revisions are released with this license statement:
This page is released under CC-BY-SA. Depending on its editing history, it MAY also be available under the GFDL; see [link] for how to determine that. [end quote from Richard]
The sometimes, sort of, dual licensing provisions be advocated here strikes me as impractical.
As I understand it, and correct me if I am mistaken, the goal is to dual license all existing content and all future content directly created by Wikipedians.
Doesn't matter. The wording allows us to release all future content directly created by Wikipedians CC-BY-SA only.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:51 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: <snip>
FAL and GFDL 1.2 only are not uploaded in large enough amounts that we cannot absorb the loss.
GPL and LGPL are more of a problem
</snip>
On Commons, counting how many times each template is used.
GFDL 1.2: 9000 GPL: 14000 LGPL: 7000 FAL: 17000
I'm not sure your instincts that FAL and GFDL-1.2 are easier to deal with are necessarily correct.
-Robert Rohde
2008/11/3 Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:51 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
FAL and GFDL 1.2 only are not uploaded in large enough amounts that we cannot absorb the loss.
GPL and LGPL are more of a problem
</snip>
On Commons, counting how many times each template is used.
GFDL 1.2: 9000 GPL: 14000 LGPL: 7000 FAL: 17000
I'm not sure your instincts that FAL and GFDL-1.2 are easier to deal with are necessarily correct.
-Robert Rohde
Mostly the class of images they cover. GPL and LGPL includes a lot of screenshots which are likely to be impossible to replace.
Yes loss of FAL and GFDL 1.2 would hurt but most of it can be replaced.
CeCILL I'm not to sure about.
Robert Rohde wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:51 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
FAL and GFDL 1.2 only are not uploaded in large enough amounts that we cannot absorb the loss.
GPL and LGPL are more of a problem
</snip>
On Commons, counting how many times each template is used.
GFDL 1.2: 9000 GPL: 14000 LGPL: 7000 FAL: 17000
I'm not sure your instincts that FAL and GFDL-1.2 are easier to deal with are necessarily correct.
Does that include images dual-licensed under CC licenses? The dual-license template just includes both license templates in a fancy wrapper.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Rohde wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:51 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
FAL and GFDL 1.2 only are not uploaded in large enough amounts that we cannot absorb the loss.
GPL and LGPL are more of a problem
</snip>
On Commons, counting how many times each template is used.
GFDL 1.2: 9000 GPL: 14000 LGPL: 7000 FAL: 17000
I'm not sure your instincts that FAL and GFDL-1.2 are easier to deal with are necessarily correct.
Does that include images dual-licensed under CC licenses? The dual-license template just includes both license templates in a fancy wrapper.
Yes. My approach was very low tech, just counting what links here from the template. No effort to sort dual licensing or anything else fancy.
-Robert Rohde
This will not affect Wikimedia-internal copying transactions, as either all or no GFDL-licensed Wikimedia wikis will be switched to CC-BY-SA.
Note is it common in Norway, from previous cases, to be able to opt out of major single sided changes in such arrangements. Last time this was discussed in length in media it was about a contract for a satelite TV company, and it was said very clear that each and every customer had an right to opt out. Has this been given due considerations, and is there any other countries where there are any known court cases with such major license changes? And yes, I do know that some people think that a licence isn't a contract.
An opt out might be to choose a completly different license or refuse to give it any license at all, effectivly using Norwegian copyright law and then creating havoc.
This re-licensing proposal will include a simplified dual-licensing proposition, under which content will continue to be indefinitely available under GFDL, except for articles which include CC-BY-SA-only additions from external sources.
If I understand you correctly; no matter what later Creative Commons license is choosen, the GFDL in some version will be keept?
Relicensing can only be done by the operator of such a website, not by any other party. So the Wikimedia Foundation can choose to re-license Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc., but no other party can. We will be able to do so because most GFDL-licensed content implicitly or explicitly permits re-use under "any later version" of the GFDL.
Will Wikimedia Foundation take the role of a publisher when relicensing content? And how does that affect the editors as those are the owners of the work. I try to interprete this in the context of Norwegian copyright law, and I'm not sure if this can be done. I know that some of the people involved in Creative Commons claims this to be legal.
If some GFDL 1.2 content that cannot be migrated later is imported by accident, that should not present any great difficulty -- we will simply remove it as we would remove any other problematic copyrighted content.
When you say "we", does you not say that you take on an editorial role? Can you do that as an ISP?
Erik Moeller skrev:
All -
As has been pointed out, the Free Software Foundation has now released version 1.3 of the GNU Free Documentation License, which is the standard text license used by all Wikimedia Foundation projects with the exception of Wikinews. The updated license text can be found here: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
[If you are still seeing version 1.2 on that URL, you may need to clear your browser cache.]
We are very grateful to the Free Software Foundation for working with us to develop this re-licensing language.
The only change is the addition of section 11, "Relicensing". This section permits "massive multi-author collaboration websites" (i.e. wikis and wiki-like websites) to relicense GFDL content to the CC-BY-SA, under two key constraints:
- Newly added externally originating GFDL content cannot be relicensed
after November 1, 2008. (In other words, we should stop importing GFDL content from non-Wikimedia sources, unless they plan to switch as well. I believe Wikia is planning to switch, but will confirm that shortly. Please feel free to begin reaching out to other relevant GFDL sources.)
- The relicensing clause will expire on August 1, 2009.
Relicensing can only be done by the operator of such a website, not by any other party. So the Wikimedia Foundation can choose to re-license Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc., but no other party can. We will be able to do so because most GFDL-licensed content implicitly or explicitly permits re-use under "any later version" of the GFDL.
== Why wasn't this license available for review earlier? ==
The restriction on externally originating FDL content is intended to prevent bulk-import and bulk-relicensing of FDL content from external sources. This is intended to protect the autonomy of site operators in making a re-licensing decision, and to prevent FDL-licensed software documentation from being re-licensed without the permission of the authors. This was a key condition for the Free Software Foundation to agree to this change. While an earlier draft was published, the specifics of the migration process have been negotiated privately in order to not allow for such systematic bulk-relicensing by interested third parties.
== What's next? ==
- Later this month, we will post a re-licensing proposal for all
Wikimedia wikis which are currently licensed under the GFDL. It will be collaboratively developed on meta.wiki and I will announce it here. This re-licensing proposal will include a simplified dual-licensing proposition, under which content will continue to be indefinitely available under GFDL, except for articles which include CC-BY-SA-only additions from external sources. (The terms of service, under this proposal, will be modified to require dual-licensing permission for any new changes.)
It will be the obligation of re-users to validate whether an article includes CC-BY-SA-only changes -- dual licensing should not be a burden on editors. This is also not intended to be bidirectional, i.e., merging in GFDL-only text will not be possible.
We _will_ propose to continue to permit GFDL 1.2-only media uploads for the forseeable future, to address concerns regarding strong and weak copyleft, until such concerns are fully resolved to the satisfaction of community members. However, GFDL 1.2-or-later media are expected to be migrated to CC-BY-SA under this proposal. It is expected that we will launch a community-wide referendum on this proposal, where a majority will constitute sufficient support for re-licensing.
- As a heads up, communities should be more careful with importing
external FDL content, unless they know for sure that it will be migrated to CC-BY-SA in the near future. This will not affect Wikimedia-internal copying transactions, as either all or no GFDL-licensed Wikimedia wikis will be switched to CC-BY-SA. If some GFDL 1.2 content that cannot be migrated later is imported by accident, that should not present any great difficulty -- we will simply remove it as we would remove any other problematic copyrighted content.
More information will follow later this month as we develop the re-licensing proposal. Let me know if you have any immediate questions.
Thanks, Erik
2008/11/3 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
Note is it common in Norway, from previous cases, to be able to opt out of major single sided changes in such arrangements.
We'll address the jurisdictional issue in the migration proposal.
If I understand you correctly; no matter what later Creative Commons license is choosen, the GFDL in some version will be keept?
Except for articles incorporating CC-BY-SA-only changes, yes.
Will Wikimedia Foundation take the role of a publisher when relicensing content?
Mike can answer much better to any section 230 issues, but no, I don't see how it would. This change seems to me to be very similar in nature to our licensing policy.
Erik Moeller skrev:
2008/11/3 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
Note is it common in Norway, from previous cases, to be able to opt out of major single sided changes in such arrangements.
We'll address the jurisdictional issue in the migration proposal.
That will be interesting, and I'll look forward to it. Personally I don't think very many will choose to opt out, but I really don't know. It is enough that very few persons opt out for a chaos to emerge...
If I understand you correctly; no matter what later Creative Commons license is choosen, the GFDL in some version will be keept?
Except for articles incorporating CC-BY-SA-only changes, yes.
Will Wikimedia Foundation take the role of a publisher when relicensing content?
Mike can answer much better to any section 230 issues, but no, I don't see how it would. This change seems to me to be very similar in nature to our licensing policy.
I don't think so, because you can make a site and say people has to contribute given these limitations, without ever touching their content. If you changes the rules so people has to change their content, or remove the content, or are deprived for certain rights they previously had for the said content, then I think you have touched their content and taken on an editorial role.
I myself thinks dual licensing is somewhat crappy but it is a kind of least evil thing to do. The collective crediting scheme is the one I fear most as that will violate the Norwegian copyright law as it says authors should be attributed and that this is a right they can't give away. CC-by-sa, even if crappy, is acceptable together with GFDL if the attribution of authors are done according to this license, that is attribution has to satisfy both licenses. If the attribution is only «Wikipedia», then we run into trouble...
To make a system for extracting five likely authors, even if difficult, should be managable.
John
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
More information will follow later this month as we develop the re-licensing proposal. Let me know if you have any immediate questions.
A brief update - Mike drafted an FAQ which we're going to release very soon, and hopefully we'll be able to put together the full proposal before the new year.
Hi Erik,
thanks for your update. Sorry for not waiting for the FAQ, but could you shortly mention to whom this proposal will be directed? The Board or the Community?
Lodewijk
2008/12/2 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
More information will follow later this month as we develop the re-licensing proposal. Let me know if you have any immediate questions.
A brief update - Mike drafted an FAQ which we're going to release very soon, and hopefully we'll be able to put together the full proposal before the new year.
-- 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
2008/12/2 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com:
thanks for your update. Sorry for not waiting for the FAQ, but could you shortly mention to whom this proposal will be directed? The Board or the Community?
The community of all languages and all projects.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
More information will follow later this month as we develop the re-licensing proposal. Let me know if you have any immediate questions.
A brief update - Mike drafted an FAQ which we're going to release very soon, and hopefully we'll be able to put together the full proposal before the new year.
About FAQ: It would be useful if FAQ would consist some kind of [licensing] recommendations for non-Wikimedia wiki projects.
2008/12/3 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
More information will follow later this month as we develop the re-licensing proposal. Let me know if you have any immediate questions.
A brief update - Mike drafted an FAQ which we're going to release very soon, and hopefully we'll be able to put together the full proposal before the new year.
About FAQ: It would be useful if FAQ would consist some kind of [licensing] recommendations for non-Wikimedia wiki projects.
How do you mean? Details of what kind of licenses other projects would need to use in order for content to be shared between them and Wikimedia projects? If so, I agree, that would be useful information.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/3 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2008/11/3 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
More information will follow later this month as we develop the re-licensing proposal. Let me know if you have any immediate questions.
A brief update - Mike drafted an FAQ which we're going to release very soon, and hopefully we'll be able to put together the full proposal before the new year.
About FAQ: It would be useful if FAQ would consist some kind of [licensing] recommendations for non-Wikimedia wiki projects.
How do you mean? Details of what kind of licenses other projects would need to use in order for content to be shared between them and Wikimedia projects? If so, I agree, that would be useful information.
Yes.
Erik Moeller, 02/12/2008 18:30:
A brief update - Mike drafted an FAQ which we're going to release very soon, and hopefully we'll be able to put together the full proposal before the new year.
In it.wiki there are many uncertainties on splitting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Splitting). Will the CC-BY-SA change the procedure (links, templates, reproduction of the history in the talk, etc.)?
Nemo
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org