Matthew Britton writes:
Allowing people to "opt out" like this simply isn't possible.
I think it's only theoretically impossible. As a practical matter, I don't think it's much of a problem. I believe we could work with the minority of contributors who believe their content cannot be migrated in a way that is satisfactory to them.
I imagine most people who have been contributing for any length of time share my view that our contributions are effectively public domain and, regardless of what I, the Foundation or indeed anyone else does, have been and will be used in many different ways without the slightest bit of respect for the GFDL or any other license.
This is in fact what makes it possible, as a practical matter, to accommodate those contributors who object -- most contributors aren't personally invested in the specifics of the GFDL.
As Andrew Whitworth writes:
Besides a few GFDL ideologists, most contributors wouldn't care at all if we switched licenses, and many would welcome the freedom of a less restrictive licensing scheme.
Now, I don't disagree with Tim Bartel's point that:
Clauses like '...or later versions.' are invalid in German jurisdiction and only the rest of the license applies. [Delphine makes the same point about French law.]
... but I think as a practical matter this is not a problem, because you'd have to find a copyright-holding Wikipedian in Germany who (a) doesn't want to relicense, and (b) would prefer to spend money on litigation rather than simply withdraw his or her contributions (from Wikipedia, not from any other venue that is using the content consistent with older GFDL versions) . And even if you could find someone for whom both (a) and (b) are true, the fact that WMF would likely withdraw the contributions anyway if litigation were even hinted at would go a long way towards building a legal defense for WMF in such a case.
--Mike
I think it's only theoretically impossible. As a practical matter, I don't think it's much of a problem. I believe we could work with the minority of contributors who believe their content cannot be migrated in a way that is satisfactory to them.
You mean "the minority of contributors who believe their content cannot be migrated in a way that is satisfactory to them *and find out what we're doing*". I think you're mainly relying on people not noticing, which doesn't seem very moral to me.
Clauses like '...or later versions.' are invalid in German jurisdiction and only the rest of the license applies. [Delphine makes the same point about French law.]
... but I think as a practical matter this is not a problem, because you'd have to find a copyright-holding Wikipedian in Germany who (a) doesn't want to relicense, and (b) would prefer to spend money on litigation rather than simply withdraw his or her contributions (from Wikipedia, not from any other venue that is using the content consistent with older GFDL versions) . And even if you could find someone for whom both (a) and (b) are true, the fact that WMF would likely withdraw the contributions anyway if litigation were even hinted at would go a long way towards building a legal defense for WMF in such a case.
Withdrawing contributions would be a nightmare, as I explained in a previous email. That aside, if we agree that we need their permission to relicense, then surely it needs to be opt-in, not opt-out? "It's only illegal if someone sues you" may work in practice, but it doesn't seem like a very nice way to behave.
On 21/11/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You mean "the minority of contributors who believe their content cannot be migrated in a way that is satisfactory to them *and find out what we're doing*". I think you're mainly relying on people not noticing, which doesn't seem very moral to me.
They signed up for "or later." If they didn't mean that, they shouldn't have contributed. Really really.
I don't know about other wikis, but on en:wp trying to repudiate your contributions or claim that they are declared not subject to the license you agree to contribute under each and every time you press "submit" tends to lead to a blocking to avoid further legal danger.
- d.
On Nov 21, 2007 2:41 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/11/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You mean "the minority of contributors who believe their content cannot be migrated in a way that is satisfactory to them *and find out what we're doing*". I think you're mainly relying on people not noticing, which doesn't seem very moral to me.
They signed up for "or later." If they didn't mean that, they shouldn't have contributed. Really really.
I don't know about other wikis, but on en:wp trying to repudiate your contributions or claim that they are declared not subject to the license you agree to contribute under each and every time you press "submit" tends to lead to a blocking to avoid further legal danger.
The GFDL also promises that any "new versions [of the GFDL] will be similar in spirit to the present version". If the future versions change in any major way, that's a substantial clause by which to litigate under. For example, if the future GFDL changes when and how authors are acknowledged, one could argue that such changes are not similar in spirit to the present version.
-Robert Rohde
On 21/11/2007, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
The GFDL also promises that any "new versions [of the GFDL] will be similar in spirit to the present version". If the future versions change in any major way, that's a substantial clause by which to litigate under. For example, if the future GFDL changes when and how authors are acknowledged, one could argue that such changes are not similar in spirit to the present version.
One could argue this where precisely? In which court against who?
Most of these hypotheticals are vacuous and self-FUDding. The law is not deterministic computer code.
- d.
On 21/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/11/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You mean "the minority of contributors who believe their content cannot be migrated in a way that is satisfactory to them *and find out what we're doing*". I think you're mainly relying on people not noticing, which doesn't seem very moral to me.
They signed up for "or later." If they didn't mean that, they shouldn't have contributed. Really really.
I don't know about other wikis, but on en:wp trying to repudiate your contributions or claim that they are declared not subject to the license you agree to contribute under each and every time you press "submit" tends to lead to a blocking to avoid further legal danger.
If that's the case, then there is no need for an opt-out. Mike is suggesting that an opt-out is required, and I can't see anything that would require an opt-out without requiring an opt-in. The issue with "or later" clauses being invalid means we may well require some kind of permission from contributors.
On 21/11/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If that's the case, then there is no need for an opt-out. Mike is suggesting that an opt-out is required, and I can't see anything that would require an opt-out without requiring an opt-in. The issue with "or later" clauses being invalid means we may well require some kind of permission from contributors.
On en:wp, when someone tries to un-GFDL their content, it'll often be removed (at least from the present version) 'cos we're nice. But not if it'd be seriously problematic to remove, and *certainly* not because we have to.
- d.
Wasn't there a situation a few months back in which an administrator on enwiki did not want his images copied to commons and so he tried deleting all his images claiming that he'd retracted his GFDL image contributions?
I vaguely remember it, but I don't remember the details. What ended up happening in the end?
Chad H.
On Nov 21, 2007 6:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/11/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If that's the case, then there is no need for an opt-out. Mike is suggesting that an opt-out is required, and I can't see anything that would require an opt-out without requiring an opt-in. The issue with "or later" clauses being invalid means we may well require some kind of permission from contributors.
On en:wp, when someone tries to un-GFDL their content, it'll often be removed (at least from the present version) 'cos we're nice. But not if it'd be seriously problematic to remove, and *certainly* not because we have to.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 21/11/2007, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
Wasn't there a situation a few months back in which an administrator on enwiki did not want his images copied to commons and so he tried deleting all his images claiming that he'd retracted his GFDL image contributions? I vaguely remember it, but I don't remember the details. What ended up happening in the end?
I recall the case, I don't recall the details. I believe he did not get entirely what he wanted. I do recall LOTS of people wondering how the hell he could get to admin with that little understanding of what he was doing each and every time he pressed "submit."
- d.
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 18:28 -0500, Chad wrote:
Wasn't there a situation a few months back in which an administrator on enwiki did not want his images copied to commons and so he tried deleting all his images claiming that he'd retracted his GFDL image contributions?
I vaguely remember it, but I don't remember the details. What ended up happening in the end?
(As far as I can remember.) Guy abandon the attempt / changed his mind eventually. Led to someone to create [[en:WP:NOREVOKE]] (which was tagged as policy).
KTC
On 23/11/2007, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
(As far as I can remember.) Guy abandon the attempt / changed his mind eventually. Led to someone to create [[en:WP:NOREVOKE]] (which was tagged as policy).
It's actually tagged as "informative, not a policy or guideline" - so factual errors are open to correction.
- d.
On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 17:21 +0000, David Gerard wrote:
On 23/11/2007, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
(As far as I can remember.) Guy abandon the attempt / changed his mind eventually. Led to someone to create [[en:WP:NOREVOKE]] (which was tagged as policy).
It's actually tagged as "informative, not a policy or guideline" - so factual errors are open to correction.
Maybe I wasn't clear what I meant. There's a reason I used "was tagged as", rather than "is tag as".
KTC
On 24/11/2007, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 17:21 +0000, David Gerard wrote:
On 23/11/2007, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
(As far as I can remember.) Guy abandon the attempt / changed his mind eventually. Led to someone to create [[en:WP:NOREVOKE]] (which was tagged as policy).
It's actually tagged as "informative, not a policy or guideline" - so factual errors are open to correction.
Maybe I wasn't clear what I meant. There's a reason I used "was tagged as", rather than "is tag as".
Ah yes :-)
- d.
Mike Godwin wrote:
... but I think as a practical matter this is not a problem, because you'd have to find a copyright-holding Wikipedian in Germany who (a) doesn't want to relicense, and (b) would prefer to spend money on litigation rather than simply withdraw his or her contributions (from Wikipedia, not from any other venue that is using the content consistent with older GFDL versions) . And even if you could find someone for whom both (a) and (b) are true, the fact that WMF would likely withdraw the contributions anyway if litigation were even hinted at would go a long way towards building a legal defense for WMF in such a case.
Mike, you may have noticed that this list includes some people who would treat the most improbable of circumstances as though they were everyday occurrences. :-)
Ec
Mike, you may have noticed that this list includes some people who would treat the most improbable of circumstances as though they were everyday occurrences. :-)
Not everyday occurrences, just possible occurrences. When you start treating the improbable as impossible, you run the risk of falling flat on your face.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Mike, you may have noticed that this list includes some people who would treat the most improbable of circumstances as though they were everyday occurrences. :-)
Not everyday occurrences, just possible occurrences. When you start treating the improbable as impossible, you run the risk of falling flat on your face.
Ah! So you must buy a lot of lottery tickets. :-)
Ec
Not everyday occurrences, just possible occurrences. When you start treating the improbable as impossible, you run the risk of falling flat on your face.
Ah! So you must buy a lot of lottery tickets. :-)
We're talking about possible but unlikely risks, not possible but unlikely gains. They are completely different.
On Nov 23, 2007 6:16 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Not everyday occurrences, just possible occurrences. When you start treating the improbable as impossible, you run the risk of falling flat on your face.
Ah! So you must buy a lot of lottery tickets. :-)
We're talking about possible but unlikely risks, not possible but unlikely gains. They are completely different.
From a game theory perspective, aren't they exactly the same?
We're talking about possible but unlikely risks, not possible but unlikely gains. They are completely different.
From a game theory perspective, aren't they exactly the same?
No. If you own £100, losing £100 is infinitely bad. There is no amount of gain that is infinitely good.
On Nov 23, 2007 10:16 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We're talking about possible but unlikely risks, not possible but unlikely gains. They are completely different.
From a game theory perspective, aren't they exactly the same?
No. If you own £100, losing £100 is infinitely bad. There is no amount of gain that is infinitely good.
Losing all your money is not infinitely bad. Losing £101 would be worse. And even if that weren't true, I don't think you're using "infinitely" in any standard sense of the term. About the only result I could see *arguably* being "infinitely" bad would be losing your life, but even then for most people there are things they value more than their life, and the situations we're currently discussing don't involve loss of life anyway.
Besides, even if that were true, that alone doesn't make possible risks "completely different" from unlikely gains. I agree with you that losing all your money isn't equal to doubling all your money, but this is an effect of the [[marginal utility]] of money, not a fundamental difference between an actual cost and an [[opportunity cost]].
Losing all your money is not infinitely bad. Losing £101 would be worse. And even if that weren't true, I don't think you're using "infinitely" in any standard sense of the term. About the only result I could see *arguably* being "infinitely" bad would be losing your life, but even then for most people there are things they value more than their life, and the situations we're currently discussing don't involve loss of life anyway.
It's all a matter of definition. You can define your values to be anything you like - the maths behind game theory doesn't care. For example, you could define the value of money logarithmically, then the difference between 100 and 0 is infinite.
On Nov 23, 2007 10:53 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 23, 2007 10:16 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We're talking about possible but unlikely risks, not possible but unlikely gains. They are completely different.
From a game theory perspective, aren't they exactly the same?
No. If you own £100, losing £100 is infinitely bad. There is no amount of gain that is infinitely good.
Losing all your money is not infinitely bad. Losing £101 would be worse. And even if that weren't true, I don't think you're using "infinitely" in any standard sense of the term.
To put it another way, if losing £100 is infinitely bad, then you'd never engage in any risk, no matter how small, which had any chance of leading to such a result. This means, in essence, you'd never do anything at all.
Actually, this in itself would be self-contradictory, because since every action you could possibly make (including doing nothing) would have a risk you'd lose £100, every action would therefore have an infinitely negative payout and therefore be equivalent in value. 50% of infinity is equal to 0.0001% of infinity, after all.
To put it another way, if losing £100 is infinitely bad, then you'd never engage in any risk, no matter how small, which had any chance of leading to such a result. This means, in essence, you'd never do anything at all.
I disagree that every action has a chance of losing everything you own. Nevertheless, we're not talking about real life, we're talking abstractly - you were asking about the game theory perspective. Game theory doesn't assign values to outcomes, it just gives results based on the values you assume. You can assume any values you like. If you assume the value of money is logarithmic, there is a definite difference between risks and gains, therefore they are not the same from a game theoretic point of view. From the point of view of a given value system, they might be equivalent or they might not, but that's part of the value system, not of game theory.
For a more realistic value system that displays the same behaviour, assume there is a certain amount of money you need to live (to buy food, for example). If you have less than that, you die, if you have more than that, you get a few luxuries. It's is reasonable to assert that no amount of luxuries is worth death (plenty of people would disagree, but it's still reasonable). (This is similar to the advice given to casino goers of keeping their taxi fare home in a different pocket to their gambling money - however sure you are of a bet, it's not worth risking not being able to get home.)
On Nov 23, 2007 11:46 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
To put it another way, if losing £100 is infinitely bad, then you'd never engage in any risk, no matter how small, which had any chance of leading to such a result. This means, in essence, you'd never do anything at all.
I disagree that every action has a chance of losing everything you own.
It seems to me that even no action at all has that chance, although it depends in part on what you consider "everything you own". Your initial statement suggested a loss as a monetary figure, which is both easier to deal with and more appropriate to the situation at hand.
Nevertheless, we're not talking about real life, we're talking abstractly - you were asking about the game theory perspective. Game theory doesn't assign values to outcomes, it just gives results based on the values you assume. You can assume any values you like. If you assume the value of money is logarithmic, there is a definite difference between risks and gains, therefore they are not the same from a game theoretic point of view.
I don't deny that there is a definite difference, nor do I claim that they are completely the same. I deny that they are *completely* different. The magnitudes are different, but everything else is the same.
And I don't see what making the value "logaritmic" has to do with anything. If the value of money is equal to the base ten logarithm of the amount of money, then the difference between 0 and 100 is equal to the difference between 100 and 1000, and thus is not infinite at all.
From the point of view of a given value system, they might be equivalent or they might not, but that's part of the value system, not of game theory.
Agreed, at least for any sane value system. Applying a value system which gives infinite values to certain situations would probably destroy game theory.
For a more realistic value system that displays the same behaviour, assume there is a certain amount of money you need to live (to buy food, for example). If you have less than that, you die, if you have more than that, you get a few luxuries.
I can't make that assumption, because it is unrealistic.
It's is reasonable to assert that no amount of luxuries is worth death (plenty of people would disagree, but it's still reasonable).
It really isn't, though. No one lives their life with a sole purpose of avoiding death, or more meaningfully (as it's probably impossible to avoid death), with a purpose of extending their life as long as possible.
And even if someone did live their life with a purpose of extending it as long as possible, now you'd have to define the payout of living life for a certain amount of time. Is it worth a 1% chance of dying one year from now for a 99% chance of increasing your lifespan from 80 years to 90 years? You still can't separate potential risks from potential gains. No matter how much wealth you have, if you had more wealth, you could protect yourself against more possible ways of dying.
(This is similar to the advice given to casino goers of keeping their taxi fare home in a different pocket to their gambling money - however sure you are of a bet, it's not worth risking not being able to get home.)
While it may be valid advice in terms of the situations one is likely to find oneself in at a casino, it isn't literally true. The cost of having to hitchhike home might be great, but it's not infinite.
And I don't see what making the value "logaritmic" has to do with anything. If the value of money is equal to the base ten logarithm of the amount of money, then the difference between 0 and 100 is equal to the difference between 100 and 1000, and thus is not infinite at all.
You may want to get a calculator and check that...
On Nov 23, 2007 1:15 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
And I don't see what making the value "logaritmic" has to do with anything. If the value of money is equal to the base ten logarithm of the amount of money, then the difference between 0 and 100 is equal to the difference between 100 and 1000, and thus is not infinite at all.
You may want to get a calculator and check that...
Touche. I should have said the difference between 100 and 10000.
log10(100)-log10(0)=log10(10000)-log10(100)? 2-0=4-2? 2=2? Yes.
OK, after making that mistake, I guess I'm going to have to bow out of this argument. You may not have convinced me, but I think I just lost all credibility with anyone following along. :)
On Nov 23, 2007 1:22 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 23, 2007 1:15 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
And I don't see what making the value "logaritmic" has to do with anything. If the value of money is equal to the base ten logarithm of the amount of money, then the difference between 0 and 100 is equal to the difference between 100 and 1000, and thus is not infinite at all.
You may want to get a calculator and check that...
Touche. I should have said the difference between 100 and 10000.
log10(100)-log10(0)=log10(10000)-log10(100)? 2-0=4-2? 2=2? Yes.
On 23/11/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
OK, after making that mistake, I guess I'm going to have to bow out of this argument. You may not have convinced me, but I think I just lost all credibility with anyone following along. :)
These things happen. :)
For the benefit of anyone else that's confused by this: The log of 0 (in any base) in minus infinity (well, strictly speaking, it's undefined, but the limit of log x as x tends to 0 is minus infinity, so it makes sense to just say log 0 = -infinity).
On 22/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Mike Godwin wrote:
... but I think as a practical matter this is not a problem, because you'd have to find a copyright-holding Wikipedian in Germany who (a) doesn't want to relicense, and (b) would prefer to spend money on litigation rather than simply withdraw his or her contributions (from Wikipedia, not from any other venue that is using the content consistent with older GFDL versions) . And even if you could find someone for whom both (a) and (b) are true, the fact that WMF would likely withdraw the contributions anyway if litigation were even hinted at would go a long way towards building a legal defense for WMF in such a case.
Mike, you may have noticed that this list includes some people who would treat the most improbable of circumstances as though they were everyday occurrences. :-)
Ec
Mostly because due to the shear number of uploads we get 10,000 to 1 problems turn up every few weeks. Try dealing with our image uploads from new users for any length of time and you will soon find you need a detailed knowledge of:
IP law of every major country (copyright, Freedom of panorama, trademark, bizarre one off stuff (DMCA copy protection stuff, Olympics)) Inheritance law What exactly constitutes work for hire (politicians offices are experts at causing issues with this one) Technically trespass law but I think we decided that was the uploader's problem.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org