[Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

[Foundation-l] Sexual Content on...

[Foundation-l] Nokia, licensing...

Michael Peel

28 Jan 2009 28 Jan '09

9:45 a.m.

Hi all, The author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, John Broughton, has just uploaded the book to Wikipedia under the GFDL, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual My reaction when I spotted this was: great, but shouldn't this be on Wikibooks? Part of the author's response to this was that "the agreement between O'Reilly Media and the Wikimedia Foundation was that this would be at /Wikipedia/ ... [do] not remove it from this site without a /lot/ more discussion among a /lot/ of other people." Did the WMF really make an agreement saying that the content should be on Wikipedia, rather than a WMF project or simply under a free license? Does anyone want to weigh in with comments on this on the talk page? Thanks, Mike Peel

Show replies by date

Gerard Meijssen

28 Jan 28 Jan

10 a.m.

Hoi, Let us fist congratulate O'Reilley and John Broughton with their decision to make their work available to us. This is in my opinion excellent news. The question where this manual should be is not that straight forward. Wikipedia NEEDS better help text and this truly puts all this information where it is most needed; on the English language Wikipedia itself. When you consider the usability of software, good documentation is definetly part of it. This justified that this book is on en.wp itself. The least it will do is spark attention on our documentation and how the book should be integrated in our project documentation. I can imagine that the book itself also gets its place on Wikibooks. The rationale behind that would be that it survives as a book. This book will need maintenance as does the help text but they are essentially two different things. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>

...

Erik Moeller

10:13 a.m.

First, we think it's wonderful that O'Reilly has done this; TMM is a fantastic book and a great introduction for newbies. (We have been giving copies away as gifts for a while.) I believe Frank is planning to blog about this in more detail soon. Please do show them some love for doing this; it's obviously highly unusual and very nice. :-) O'Reilly took the initiative to release the book under a free license, and we've encouraged it - but we don't have any formal agreement with them that it ought to be posted on Wikipedia. That's a community decision, and neither we nor O'Reilly would want it to be any other way. My personal take is that it should live where it's most likely to be used and maintained, and regardless of its dead tree origins, the help section of en.wp seems to be a pretty logical place. But that's just my take - in future, we are also considering to set up a dedicated portal with various learning resources for wiki newbies, where static copies could live. Erik 2009/1/28 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>et>:

...

-- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

Erik Moeller

10:28 a.m.

2009/1/28 Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:

...

First, we think it's wonderful that O'Reilly has done this; TMM is a fantastic book and a great introduction for newbies. (We have been giving copies away as gifts for a while.)

Also, as the O'Reilly press release notes, it's John who took the initiative to make this happen. So big, big thanks to John. :-) I've been meaning to write about this for a while, as a quick related heads up: We're also contracting John to write a Wikipedia Educator's Guide for us, which will hopefully help students and educators to get a better understanding regarding Wikipedia use. It will also include case studies about student assignments. The guide won't be directly developed on a Wikimedia wiki to avoid an icky paying-for-content situation, but once it's ready we'll publicize it widely and hope it'll find a home on Wikibooks or elsewhere for future development. For those who want to get a first glimpse behind the scenes, John is working on at it at <howto.pediapress.com>. He is happy to collaborate, but it's his baby and he'll build it however he wishes. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

phoebe ayers

31 Jan 31 Jan

10:01 p.m.

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

But, so far, not that unusual for books about Wikipedia! ;)

...

O'Reilly took the initiative to release the book under a free license, and we've encouraged it - but we don't have any formal agreement with them that it ought to be posted on Wikipedia. That's a community decision, and neither we nor O'Reilly would want it to be any other way. My personal take is that it should live where it's most likely to be used and maintained, and regardless of its dead tree origins, the help section of en.wp seems to be a pretty logical place. But that's just my take - in future, we are also considering to set up a dedicated portal with various learning resources for wiki newbies, where static copies could live. Erik

I'm clearly not unbiased in the matter, but it seems to me that it would make sense to have it at Wikibooks, since it's a complete work that can stand alone. It's also, of course, not the only book about Wikipedia, and I think we were planning to put "How Wikipedia Works" on Wikibooks eventually.* Clearly these books should be close to Wikipedia and well-linked from there, but I'm not sure they should actually be *on* Wikipedia. It makes sense to me to make an area with all sorts of multilingual learning resources in all sorts of formats as well, like Erik suggests. Currently on the English Wikipedia there is the out of the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Instructional_material, but this needs to be greatly improved. I'd be glad to work on a project to do so. -- phoebe * this hasn't happened mostly because I've been busy this winter.

geni

28 Jan 28 Jan

10:14 a.m.

2009/1/28 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>et>:

...

Sam Korn

10:18 a.m.

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:14 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Unless it was relicensed. And it would surprise me if they genuinely objected to such relicensing... -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

Gerard Meijssen

10:19 a.m.

Hoi, You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian, can relicense it to anything he likes. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>

...

2009/1/28 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>et>:

Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Thomas Dalton

1:27 p.m.

2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Hoi, You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian, can relicense it to anything he likes.

Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need to be deleted.

Chad

1:37 p.m.

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:

Hoi, You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian, can relicense it to anything he likes.

Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need to be deleted.

Did you consider asking him? -Chad

Thomas Dalton

1:54 p.m.

2009/1/28 Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:

Hoi, You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian, can relicense it to anything he likes.

Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need to be deleted.

Did you consider asking him?

No, we haven't even decided if we are going to switch yet.

effe iets anders

3:57 p.m.

Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision. Why not just copy it and see where it flourishes best? Best regards, Lodewijk 2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>

...

2009/1/28 Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>om>:

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com wrote: > 2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>: > > Hoi, > > You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected

Wikipedian,

can relicense it to anything he likes.

Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need to be deleted.

Did you consider asking him?

No, we haven't even decided if we are going to switch yet. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Thomas Dalton

4:01 p.m.

2009/1/28 effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

While it could be copied, I'm not sure there is much point having it duplicated - it just means any improvements need to be made twice. It could be moved to Wikibooks and then Wikipedia could link/redirect to it, that might make the most sense.

Ray Saintonge

29 Jan 29 Jan

10:07 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

2009/1/28 effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com>om>:

I suppose it could also be copied into Wikisource as a static copy where changes would not be allowed. Ec

Andrew Whitworth

28 Jan 28 Jan

4:10 p.m.

I hate to say it, but it would probably flourish best on Wikipedia, since there are more knowledgable wikipedians on that site with a vested interest to make the book better. The question is more one of appropriateness, does Wikipedia want to host books, even books about Wikipedia? Wikibooks has policies and structures in place already to manage books like this, Wikipedia would have to write some kind of special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there. Of course, we have to ask what the authors want too, even if we "can" move the book to Wikibooks under the GFDL, I don't want to do that if the authors or copyright owners are unhappy with it. --Andrew Whitworth On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:57 AM, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2009/1/28 Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>om>:

Wikipedian,

> can relicense it to anything he likes. Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need to be deleted.

Did you consider asking him?

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Thomas Dalton

4:15 p.m.

2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Wikipedia would have to write some kind of special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.

We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)

Chris Down

29 Jan 29 Jan

8:14 p.m.

As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. IUP states that this should not occur. - Chris On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>om>:

Wikipedia would have to write some kind of special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.

We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gerard Meijssen

8:32 p.m.

Hoi, As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As always, come up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other "rule; Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/29 Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia(a)googlemail.com>

...

As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. IUP states that this should not occur. - Chris On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com

wrote:

2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>om>:

Wikipedia would have to write some kind of special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Chris Down

8:36 p.m.

Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without the watermark. - Chris On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. IUP states that this should not occur. - Chris On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com

wrote:

2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>om>:

Wikipedia would have to write some kind of special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Mark (Markie)

8:44 p.m.

i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of an image where the watermark can be clearly seen and is an issue? regards mark On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without the watermark. - Chris On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

IUP

> states that this should not occur. > > - Chris > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton <

thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com

> >wrote: > > > 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>om>: > > > Wikipedia would have to write some kind of > > > special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there. > > > > We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means > > Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Robert Rohde

8:49 p.m.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobjec… -Robert Rohde On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie) <newsmarkie(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without the watermark. - Chris On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

IUP

> states that this should not occur. > > - Chris > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton <

thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Mark (Markie)

8:53 p.m.

thanks seems to me that they are on images which they own copyright on, so maybe its just that the files theyve used were from an online version or something? On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobjec… -Robert Rohde On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie) <newsmarkie(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of

image where the watermark can be clearly seen and is an issue? regards mark On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote: > Well, either way, there's no harm in asking him to upload ones without

the

> watermark. > > - Chris > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen > <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: > > > Hoi, > > As far as I know, Commons has no such thing on watermarking. As

always,

> > come > > up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an > > extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other "rule; > > Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > 2009/1/29 Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia(a)googlemail.com> > > > > > As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. > IUP > > > states that this should not occur. > > > > > > - Chris > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton < > thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>om>: > > > > > Wikipedia would have to write some kind of > > > > > special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist

there.

> > > > > > > > We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't

means

> > > > Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Chris Down

8:54 p.m.

That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either. - Chris On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobjec… -Robert Rohde On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie) <newsmarkie(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of

the

always,

there.

> > > > > > > > We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't

means

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Mark (Markie)

8:57 p.m.

well if they/john bought the image rights then they would own it, meaning that the credit is sufficient as it is. On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either. - Chris On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobjec…

-Robert Rohde On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie) <newsmarkie(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example

the

always, >> > come >> > up with better illustrations and you can replace them. This is an >> > extraordinary situation anyway... Wikipedia has also this other

"rule;

>> > Ignore all rules.. A good one to apply for now. >> > Thanks, >> > GerardM >> > >> > 2009/1/29 Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia(a)googlemail.com> >> > >> > > As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the

user.

> IUP > > > states that this should not occur. > > > > > > - Chris > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton < > thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > 2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>om>: > > > > > Wikipedia would have to write some kind of > > > > > special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist

there.

> > > > > > > > We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't

means

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >

> _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Robert Rohde

9:01 p.m.

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either. - Chris

Chris Down

9:19 p.m.

Okay, I'll move it to the image description page soon if someone hasn't done it already. - Chris On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chris Down <neuro.wikipedia(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either. - Chris

The original is however referenced in the image caption on the page where it is used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Appendixes/… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fujisan_from_Motohakone.jpg -Robert _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Ray Saintonge

10:03 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>om>:

Wikipedia would have to write some kind of special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.

We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means Wikibooks wouldn't handle it better, though!)

I don't think that IAR is even needed for this when you take into account that it's going into the Help: namespace. Ec

Gerard Meijssen

28 Jan 28 Jan

10:24 a.m.

Hoi, You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian, can relicense it to anything he likes. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>

...

2009/1/28 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>et>:

teun spaans

1:03 p.m.

Hi Gerard, pls remain polite and dont call names. teun On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com

...

wrote:

...

Hoi, You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian, can relicense it to anything he likes. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/28 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>

2009/1/28 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>et>:

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Andrew Gray

10:26 a.m.

2009/1/28 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait, sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to license under GFDL 1.2 or later... oh, wait. How is this a special case? The CC switch, when and if it happens, will be complex enough without inventing extra problems! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

geni

11:28 a.m.

2009/1/28 Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>uk>:

...

2009/1/28 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:

It is imported GFDL material. Which is a problem. Normaly we have very little imported stuff so not something I worry about overmuch but someone might want to give a heads up to the publishing company and author that we will be looking to switch it (and since it is imported we can't do that automagicaly). -- geni

Andrew Gray

1:09 p.m.

2009/1/28 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

This is pretty silly. The author is... an active Wikipedia user, and has been for three and a half years. All his GDFL contributions made to Wikipedia can be relicensed without any fuss, but his writing first published elsewhere under *exactly the same license* and then re-uploaded, by himself, licensing his own intellectual property and ticking all the implicit boxes in exactly the same way as if he had first written it here, can't be? But even if it weren't, I'm stull confused over how we have the right to use one set of GFDL v.1.2 or later contributions, and not the other. It is, after all, *exactly the same license*... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Thomas Dalton

1:26 p.m.

2009/1/28 Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>uk>:

...

2009/1/28 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:

The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a book first and added to Wikipedia since the new license was announced, it isn't eligible (without explicit permission from the copyright owner - which shouldn't be difficult to get).

Andrew Gray

30 Jan 30 Jan

11:05 a.m.

2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Ha, that clause. I'd forgotten about it. Even so, I think we can reasonably not worry ourselves overly. The author has consented to publish it under the GFDL as normal when he uploaded it to enwp, right? You have to split hairs very fine to distinguish between: a) Author uploads own work, chooses to license the "new copy" of it under license X. b) Author uploads own work *as licensed copy* of material previously published elsewhere, and must be treated as such. Which is to say, if you look hard you have a point, but there's a perfectly legitimate interpretation going the other way, which complies with the letter just as well and the spirit perhaps better! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Thomas Dalton

31 Jan 31 Jan

11:08 p.m.

2009/1/30 Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>uk>:

...

2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:

While the spirit is clearly would allow us to relicense it (assuming the person that actually uploaded it is the sole copyright owner - the publishing company/editor might own some of the rights, I don't know how such things work), my reading of the letter of the license would say it's very clearly not allowed.

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

1 Feb 1 Feb

4:19 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

I think this merits the question: would it be only necessary to accede to the relicensing? Or would it be necessary to also ask them to abide by any new terms of use of the site that would exceed the minimal requirements of the CC-BY-SA license? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

Thomas Dalton

2 Feb 2 Feb

11:24 a.m.

2009/2/1 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Thomas Dalton wrote:

If there are additional terms then the whole relicensing is null and void, so this book would be the least of our worries. Any other content brought in from other sources would have to be deleted or the copyright owner contacted to give permission.

Ray Saintonge

29 Jan 29 Jan

10:12 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?

Andrew Gray wrote:

...

2009/1/28 geni:

LOL. I sometimes think that we have some people who live and breathe for the sole purpose of inventing extra problems. :-) Ec

Andrew Whitworth

28 Jan 28 Jan

12:14 p.m.

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:

...

I'm obviously in favor of having more books at Wikibooks, but then again it does make some sense to keep the documentation close to the website it documents. If the book is GFDL, couldn't we just copy/fork it to Wikibooks too? --Andrew Whitworth

Sam Johnston

12:17 p.m.

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

Agreed - the Wikipedia version will likely have to be significantly adapted/integrated so it makes sense to keep a reasonably verbatim version at Wikibooks. That is to say that I wouldn't promote the idea of posting a book, intact, to Wikipedia (even as an exception), but anything which improves the help material is worth encouraging. Sam

5563

days inactive

5568

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

39 comments

18 participants

tags (0)

participants (18)

Andrew Gray
Andrew Whitworth
Chad
Chris Down
effe iets anders
Erik Moeller
geni
Gerard Meijssen
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Mark (Markie)
Michael Peel
phoebe ayers
Ray Saintonge
Robert Rohde
Sam Johnston
Sam Korn
teun spaans
Thomas Dalton