With all the talk about changing to CC-BY-SA, or making modifications to the GFDL etc, it raises the question, what is our dream license? If we are going through all the effort to modify the existing GFDL, and mass-migrate the projects to a less restrictive license, maybe it makes more sense for us to draft our own. Enough people have mentioned concerns with CC-BY-SA to make me think that perhaps it isn't ideal either. Of course, once we switch, we could pressure CC into making changes to the license to suit us, but that seems like a waste of our effort when we could draft a perfect license and then switch directly to that.
--Andrew Whitworth
On 01/12/2007, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
With all the talk about changing to CC-BY-SA, or making modifications to the GFDL etc, it raises the question, what is our dream license? If we are going through all the effort to modify the existing GFDL, and mass-migrate the projects to a less restrictive license, maybe it makes more sense for us to draft our own. Enough people have mentioned concerns with CC-BY-SA to make me think that perhaps it isn't ideal either. Of course, once we switch, we could pressure CC into making changes to the license to suit us, but that seems like a waste of our effort when we could draft a perfect license and then switch directly to that.
We do not really have the legal expertise to do so and the Internet does not need yet another free license the compatibility issues are already a pain (even worse for NC any idea how many home brew NC licenses there are out there?).
Then there is the matter of trust. With any license with an update clause you have to be prepared to trust the people who can use it. The risks include that organization creating a too free license (losing the viral clause say) or creating a non legal license.
So if we thought it possible to create a wikipedia license (questionable if the FSF would agree) the options would be as follows.
FSF-safe in terms of the license not getting to free (commitment to viral and attribution clauses is pretty solid). Problem that they may be prepared to limit use in order to push their ideology. Slow rate of update to GFDL suggests they are more focused on the software license this may or may not be a problem.
CC-Hard to predict what they would do. There is a risk they would do something to jump on some bandwagon or another that could create problems down the line. Ultra specific terms like "For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License" are worrying.
wikimedia- Do not have the skill to maintain a free license at this time. Track record in terms of dealing with copyright issues isn't bad as such but not as high as I would like to see and have tended not to perform to well when acting outside their ISP function.
On 01/12/2007, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
With all the talk about changing to CC-BY-SA, or making modifications to the GFDL etc, it raises the question, what is our dream license? If we are going through all the effort to modify the existing GFDL, and mass-migrate the projects to a less restrictive license, maybe it makes more sense for us to draft our own. Enough people have mentioned concerns with CC-BY-SA to make me think that perhaps it isn't ideal either. Of course, once we switch, we could pressure CC into making changes to the license to suit us, but that seems like a waste of our effort when we could draft a perfect license and then switch directly to that.
We can't draft our own without starting from scratch. We can only use current and later versions of GFDL. This new announcement is to do with the FSF making a new version of the GFDL which would be compatible (whatever that means in this context) with CC-BY-SA. Sure, the FSF could make a new version based on what would be ideal for us, but they probably wouldn't since it would effect more than just us.
We can't draft our own without starting from scratch. We can only use current and later versions of GFDL. This new announcement is to do with the FSF making a new version of the GFDL which would be compatible (whatever that means in this context) with CC-BY-SA. Sure, the FSF could make a new version based on what would be ideal for us, but they probably wouldn't since it would effect more than just us.
What would be the issues involved in "forking" the GFDL? that is, could there be two distinct future licenses that would satisfy the "or any later version" clause?
Either way, this is just a hypothetical exercise. If we know exactly what we want if we could have anything, it would make it easier for us to make changes to the GFDL. It's always easier to do anything if you have a goal in mind.
--Andrew Whitworth
What would be the issues involved in "forking" the GFDL? that is, could there be two distinct future licenses that would satisfy the "or any later version" clause?
Because it's the person reusing the content that decides which version of the license to use, not the copyright holder.
Either way, this is just a hypothetical exercise. If we know exactly what we want if we could have anything, it would make it easier for us to make changes to the GFDL. It's always easier to do anything if you have a goal in mind.
Something tells me it may be too late for that kind of hypothetical exercise. It sounds like the licenses have already been worked out.
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
We can't draft our own without starting from scratch. We can only use current and later versions of GFDL. This new announcement is to do with the FSF making a new version of the GFDL which would be compatible (whatever that means in this context) with CC-BY-SA. Sure, the FSF could make a new version based on what would be ideal for us, but they probably wouldn't since it would effect more than just us.
What would be the issues involved in "forking" the GFDL? that is, could there be two distinct future licenses that would satisfy the "or any later version" clause?
Either way, this is just a hypothetical exercise. If we know exactly what we want if we could have anything, it would make it easier for us to make changes to the GFDL. It's always easier to do anything if you have a goal in mind.
The value in such an exercise is not in the newly created licence, but in the strategic value of the process. Realistically we all know that an entirely new proposal will encounter limitations on the path to implementation. The ability to dream is an incentive to find ways to work around the limitations.
Viewed on a more personal level, a person who claims he wants to travel who allows a lack of money or supposed family obligations to be limitations from the beginning never looks for ways to make his dreams a reality, and never travels. My wife is more concerned than I when I want to travel to another Wikimania.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org