http://blog.jamendo.com/index.php/2007/12/01/breaking-news-wikipedia-switche...
I've emailed the comcom and Jimbo asking for the first-hand details.
- d.
On 01/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.jamendo.com/index.php/2007/12/01/breaking-news-wikipedia-switche...
I've emailed the comcom and Jimbo asking for the first-hand details.
"Wikipedia switches to Creative Commons" is, um, so not the way to describe this, and we need to be very proactive about making sure we don't describe it to the community that way - "compatibility" is the term to emphasise.
(I can't be the only one who likes the license and loathes the brand...)
But this seems like good news - I hadn't realised the harmonisation of the GFDL was so close.
On 01/12/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
But this seems like good news - I hadn't realised the harmonisation of the GFDL was so close.
Well, Mike did say so right here ...
- d.
On 01/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/12/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
But this seems like good news - I hadn't realised the harmonisation of the GFDL was so close.
Well, Mike did say so right here ...
Yeah, but I still wasn't expecting it next week!
Congratulations and my thanks to all involved.
David Gerard wrote:
http://blog.jamendo.com/index.php/2007/12/01/breaking-news-wikipedia-switche...
I've emailed the comcom and Jimbo asking for the first-hand details.
- d.
Well, you might be surprised, but the board sometimes is first-hand source on information it votes upon. Which is the current case.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update
Let me copy below the text of this resolution for easy access
Whereas the Board seeks to respond responsibily to longstanding community concerns about issues of compatibility between the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license, as well as to continue longstanding traditions of strong community input and control over major decisions affecting the projects, and
Whereas a long period of discussion and negotiation between and amongst the Free Software Foundation, Creative Commons, the Wikimedia Foundation and others has produced a proposal supported by both the FSF and Creative Commons to modify the Free Documentation License in such a fashion as to allow the possibility for the Wikimedia Foundation to migrate the projects to CC-BY-SA, and
Whereas, Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) would like formal support for this license change,
It is hereby resolved that:
* The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license;
* Upon the announcement of that relicensing, the Foundation will initiate a process of community discussion and voting before making a final decision on relicensing
-----------
I invite you to read very carefully the last paragraph of the approved resolution.
Thanks
Florence Devouard
On 01/12/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
...to modify the Free Documentation License in such a fashion as to allow the possibility for the Wikimedia Foundation to migrate the projects to CC-BY-SA...
...okay, this is interesting, this wasn't how I expected we'd do it.
On Dec 1, 2007 11:07 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/12/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
...to modify the Free Documentation License in such a fashion as to allow the possibility for the Wikimedia Foundation to migrate the projects to CC-BY-SA...
...okay, this is interesting, this wasn't how I expected we'd do it.
The idea of "relicensing" has been in the GFDL draft for a while now. I don't know if this is how it's going to be done, but here's what's there now:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gfdl-draft-1.html
"[8b. WIKI RELICENSING ¶ →
If the Work was previously published, with no Cover Texts, no Invariant Sections, and no Acknowledgements or Dedications or Endorsements section, in a system for massive public collaboration under version 1.2 of this License, and if all the material in the Work was either initially developed in that collaboration system or had been imported into it before 1 June 2006, then you may relicense the Work under the GNU Wiki License.]"
BTW, the text "mass collaborative projects" in the WMF resolution roughly matches the "system for massive public collaboration" talked about in the GFDL draft.
This makes all the hand-wringing and the-sky-is-falling ("o noes! we can't switch now - it's too late!") emails of the last 2 weeks or so seem a tad silly. *Of course* this is the kind of thing that would happen to "get us out of" the GFDL. Isn't that what rational people were saying all along?! -Mike.lifeguard
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Gray Sent: December 1, 2007 12:07 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL/CC announcement?
On 01/12/2007, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
...to modify the Free Documentation License in such a fashion as to allow the possibility for the Wikimedia Foundation to migrate the projects to CC-BY-SA...
...okay, this is interesting, this wasn't how I expected we'd do it.
On 01/12/2007, mike.lifeguard mike.lifeguard@gmail.com wrote:
This makes all the hand-wringing and the-sky-is-falling ("o noes! we can't switch now - it's too late!") emails of the last 2 weeks or so seem a tad silly. *Of course* this is the kind of thing that would happen to "get us out of" the GFDL. Isn't that what rational people were saying all along?! -Mike.lifeguard
It's what pretty much everyone was saying all along. There are still issues with it, for example the fact that (apparently) such license switches aren't legal in all jurisdictions. I'm also reserving judgement until I've actually seen a copy of the new license.
Thanks to Florence for posting the resolution. Now, community, we have a lot to talk about. :)
Florence Devouard wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
http://blog.jamendo.com/index.php/2007/12/01/breaking-news-wikipedia-switche...
I've emailed the comcom and Jimbo asking for the first-hand details.
- d.
Well, you might be surprised, but the board sometimes is first-hand source on information it votes upon. Which is the current case.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update
Let me copy below the text of this resolution for easy access
Whereas the Board seeks to respond responsibily to longstanding community concerns about issues of compatibility between the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license, as well as to continue longstanding traditions of strong community input and control over major decisions affecting the projects, and
Whereas a long period of discussion and negotiation between and amongst the Free Software Foundation, Creative Commons, the Wikimedia Foundation and others has produced a proposal supported by both the FSF and Creative Commons to modify the Free Documentation License in such a fashion as to allow the possibility for the Wikimedia Foundation to migrate the projects to CC-BY-SA, and
Whereas, Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) would like formal support for this license change,
It is hereby resolved that:
- The Foundation requests that the GNU Free Documentation License be
modified in the fashion proposed by the FSF to allow migration by mass collaborative projects to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license;
- Upon the announcement of that relicensing, the Foundation will
initiate a process of community discussion and voting before making a final decision on relicensing
I invite you to read very carefully the last paragraph of the approved resolution.
Thanks
Florence Devouard
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 01/12/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Thanks to Florence for posting the resolution. Now, community, we have a lot to talk about. :)
Obviously, this is something in which to rejoice, though of course I'll remain cautious in my optimism until I see it actually done by the FSF. :-)
Yrs,
On 01/12/2007, James Forrester jdforrester@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/12/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Thanks to Florence for posting the resolution. Now, community, we have a lot to talk about. :)
Obviously, this is something in which to rejoice, though of course I'll remain cautious in my optimism until I see it actually done by the FSF. :-)
Yes. I find in particular it's odd the WMF is going to go for relicensing as CC-by-sa, rather than a GFDL "or later." I assume there's good reason for this ...
- d.
On Dec 1, 2007 12:47 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/12/2007, James Forrester jdforrester@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/12/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Thanks to Florence for posting the resolution. Now, community, we have a lot to talk about. :)
Obviously, this is something in which to rejoice, though of course I'll remain cautious in my optimism until I see it actually done by the FSF. :-)
Yes. I find in particular it's odd the WMF is going to go for relicensing as CC-by-sa, rather than a GFDL "or later." I assume there's good reason for this ...
I don't understand this comment. Presumably the GFDL "or later" will be used to take Wikipedia to GFDL 1.3 (or whatever the next version is), which will then be used to relicense as CC-BY-SA.
Why not just make the GFDL 1.3 compatible with CC-BY-SA directly? Well, for one thing, because there are people who use the GFDL besides Wikipedia.
Or am I misunderstanding what you find odd?
I don't understand this comment. Presumably the GFDL "or later" will be used to take Wikipedia to GFDL 1.3 (or whatever the next version is), which will then be used to relicense as CC-BY-SA.
Why not just make the GFDL 1.3 compatible with CC-BY-SA directly? Well, for one thing, because there are people who use the GFDL besides Wikipedia.
Or am I misunderstanding what you find odd?
What does other people using GFDL have to do with it? If the changes that make it compatible are in the spirit of the license, then why not change it for everyone? If they're not, then we can't change it for anyone.
On Dec 1, 2007 1:25 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand this comment. Presumably the GFDL "or later" will be used to take Wikipedia to GFDL 1.3 (or whatever the next version is), which will then be used to relicense as CC-BY-SA.
Why not just make the GFDL 1.3 compatible with CC-BY-SA directly? Well, for one thing, because there are people who use the GFDL besides Wikipedia.
Or am I misunderstanding what you find odd?
What does other people using GFDL have to do with it? If the changes that make it compatible are in the spirit of the license, then why not change it for everyone? If they're not, then we can't change it for anyone.
Well, for one thing, obviously any work which uses Cover Texts, Invariant Sections, Acknowledgements, Dedications, or Endorsements probably wouldn't like being switched to CC-BY-SA. But if you got around that (similar to the GSFDL), I guess you have a good point. However, it's a point which really can't be discussed until the actual text and plans are revealed. Maybe I was wrong for even speculating as much as I have.
Well, for one thing, obviously any work which uses Cover Texts, Invariant Sections, Acknowledgements, Dedications, or Endorsements probably wouldn't like being switched to CC-BY-SA.
That's where the difference between "the same" and "compatible with" comes in. Obviously, the GFDL won't be identical to CC-BY-SA for the reasons you give (unless, of course, such things are added to CC-BY-SA), but the two licenses can still be compatible when used appropriately.
But if you got around that (similar to the GSFDL), I guess you have a good point. However, it's a point which really can't be discussed until the actual text and plans are revealed. Maybe I was wrong for even speculating as much as I have.
You're absolutely right. Until we've actually seen the licenses, we're just guessing.
On Dec 1, 2007 2:17 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Well, for one thing, obviously any work which uses Cover Texts, Invariant Sections, Acknowledgements, Dedications, or Endorsements probably wouldn't like being switched to CC-BY-SA.
That's where the difference between "the same" and "compatible with" comes in. Obviously, the GFDL won't be identical to CC-BY-SA for the reasons you give (unless, of course, such things are added to CC-BY-SA), but the two licenses can still be compatible when used appropriately.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Traditionally, at least, in order for two copyleft licenses to be compatible, they have to be identical. Any derivatives of CC-BY-SA have to be CC-BY-SA. Not "compatible with" CC-BY-SA, but exactly CC-BY-SA. Any derivatives of GFDL have to be GFDL. Not "compatible with" GFDL, but exactly GFDL.
In theory I guess it'd be possible to modify CC-BY-SA and the GFDL to say that derivatives have to be CC-BY-SA or GFDL, but to do that, without eliminating Invariant Sections from the GFDL, for example, would mean that I could add Invariant Sections to a CC-BY-SA work (something which I certainly do not want to allow when I license something under CC-BY-SA). Invariant Sections alone make CC-BY-SA and the GFDL very very different in spirit. So unless you want to let people add invariant sections to a work under CC-BY-SA (oh God please no) or take them away from the GFDL (wouldn't be fair to people who use them), you can't directly make the licenses compatible.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Traditionally, at least, in order for two copyleft licenses to be compatible, they have to be identical. Any derivatives of CC-BY-SA have to be CC-BY-SA. Not "compatible with" CC-BY-SA, but exactly CC-BY-SA. Any derivatives of GFDL have to be GFDL. Not "compatible with" GFDL, but exactly GFDL.
Well, if the two licenses provide exactly the same protections for content creator and content consumer, and if the two licenses provide the same rights and responsibilities to both parties, with no additions/alterations, then the exact wording of the two licenses is inconsequential. That we we can say that the rights, permissions, and responsibilities are identical, that the spirit of the two are identical, and that the two licenses can be used interchangably.
In other words, by properly modifying the licenses, derivative works can be both "exactly CC-BY-SA" and "exactly GFDL" at the same time.
--Andrew Whitworth
On 01/12/2007, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Traditionally, at least, in order for two copyleft licenses to be compatible, they have to be identical. Any derivatives of CC-BY-SA have to be CC-BY-SA. Not "compatible with" CC-BY-SA, but exactly CC-BY-SA. Any derivatives of GFDL have to be GFDL. Not "compatible with" GFDL, but exactly GFDL.
Well, if the two licenses provide exactly the same protections for content creator and content consumer, and if the two licenses provide the same rights and responsibilities to both parties, with no additions/alterations, then the exact wording of the two licenses is inconsequential. That we we can say that the rights, permissions, and responsibilities are identical, that the spirit of the two are identical, and that the two licenses can be used interchangably.
In other words, by properly modifying the licenses, derivative works can be both "exactly CC-BY-SA" and "exactly GFDL" at the same time.
That's pretty much what I was thinking, although it's probably not quite that simple. The GFDL says derivatives have to be released under the GFDL, not under something which offers the same protections as the GFDL. Similarly with CC-BY-SA. There might be some way around that be simply dual licensing everything under both. If you want to modify something, you have to use both licenses, if you just want to use it, you can use either. (Although, that would actually mean people just using it would be using it under CC-BY-ND, not -SA, which makes my head spin.)
What say we wait and see what the licenses say, huh?
On 01/12/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Thanks to Florence for posting the resolution. Now, community, we have a lot to talk about. :)
Until we get more details (draft texts and the like) wait and see is still going to have to be the order of the day.
On Dec 1, 2007 4:41 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update
The links to the CC licenses point to the cc-by-3.0-us, whereas the text is about the cc-by-sa.
Bryan
On Dec 1, 2007 10:00 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.jamendo.com/index.php/2007/12/01/breaking-news-wikipedia-switche...
I've emailed the comcom and Jimbo asking for the first-hand details.
This is interesting. I, for one, have explicitly rejected the creative commons cc-by-sa licensing terms.
Improving GFDL *compatibility* with SOME CC licenses have been a desirable and reasonable thing which I could have supported.
I'm not sure why WikiMedia would choose this particular path, other than for the purpose of promoting Creative Commons.
Success at it will effectively establish Wikimedia's control over the licensing of the works of others simply by virtue of those works being uploaded Wikimedia's internet service. What an astonishing power-grab.
In any case, as a result of this I expect Wikimedia will be removing my contributions then, and taking due care to ensure that copies previously circulated under the GFDL 1.2 will not be mistaken for content available under some other license because of their actions.
I'm not sure why WikiMedia would choose this particular path, other than for the purpose of promoting Creative Commons.
Because including the entire text of the GFDL with every work that we release, including every image that we use, or every short article that we use is ridiculous. Wikimedia is about creating free content for people to use freely, not free content that people can use with some difficulty after jumping through licensing hoops.
--Andrew Whitworth
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Success at it will effectively establish Wikimedia's control over the licensing of the works of others simply by virtue of those works being uploaded Wikimedia's internet service. What an astonishing power-grab.
<snip>
In any case, as a result of this I expect Wikimedia will be removing my contributions then, and taking due care to ensure that copies previously circulated under the GFDL 1.2 will not be mistaken for content available under some other license because of their actions.
Isn't it crazy? For any bleedingly-obvious no-brainer-that-it's-a-great-idea idea, there'll be people who want to say how bad it is. Mr Maxwell, I've no reason to doubt that you're a fine and rational fellow, but a large "SHEESH!" to you on this one.
-- Matt
___________________________________________________________ Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
Matt R wrote:
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> > In any case, as a result of this I expect Wikimedia will be removing > my contributions then, and taking due care to ensure that copies > previously circulated under the GFDL 1.2 will not be mistaken for > content available under some other license because of their actions.
I am not a lawyer, but if any independent site hosts copies of your work and asserts GFDL or later it will not be the Foundation's responsibility to notify them they cannot also move to a later version you've not seen but are dead-set against.
Isn't it crazy? For any bleedingly-obvious
no-brainer-that-it's-a-great->idea
idea, there'll be people who want to say how bad it is. Mr Maxwell, I've no reason to doubt that you're a fine and rational fellow, but a large "SHEESH!" to you on this one.
Slashdot has posted it, http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/01/2032252
Great place to rant, much bigger audience than a mailing list.
Brian McNeil
On Dec 1, 2007 11:52 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
This is interesting. I, for one, have explicitly rejected the creative commons cc-by-sa licensing terms.
Without getting intensely legalistic (and my father was a corporate attorney who did contracts for 40 years, so I know where that goes...), the old / current GFDL and CC-BY-SA are generally felt to be in close accord in terms of practial effect and legal restrictions on reuse.
As I have asked in other threads, what in particular about CC-BY-SA do you find offensive?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org