As per the licensing update decision by the community and the Board, I've updated the site terms on the English Wikipedia (and the WMF website) today, and posted a reference copy of the site-wide terms of use to:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
The Wikimedia Commons licensing task force has gone ahead and updated the relevant GFDL templates on Commons to indicate that eligible media files may also be available under CC-BY-SA.
The English Wikipedia roll-out serves as a reference implementation and may lead to some final tweaks in the terms and language. In the coming days, we'll begin the translation and roll-out in other eligible projects and languages. Communities will be able to customize the messages and terms within limits, as described here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation
Our site-wide roll-out will likely override any project-local bottom-up implementation between now and then.
Erik Moeller schreef: [cut]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation
Our site-wide roll-out will likely override any project-local bottom-up implementation between now and then.
Question;
From the Q&A about this;
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Dual_license_vote_May_200...
Are you basically replacing the GFDL on Wikipedia with CC-BY-SA?
No, we proposed that all content currently available under GFDL will also be made available under the CC-BY-SA license, and that all future revisions must be dual licensed, with the exception of CC-BY-SA-only additions from external sources.
When I look at the updated en.wikipedia.org and [[meta:Licensing update/Implementation]] page I see that site footer only states that the text is licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License".
No mention anymore of the good old GNU/FDL.
Yes, there is the phrase; "additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details."
But is that not a weasley way of saying it is actually dual-licensed and also GNU/FDL?
That is not very Wikipedia style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words
2009/6/18 Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be:
When I look at the updated en.wikipedia.org and [[meta:Licensing update/Implementation]] page I see that site footer only states that the text is licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License".
No mention anymore of the good old GNU/FDL.
Yes, there is the phrase; "additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details."
The GNU FDL does not apply to pages that import CC-BY-SA only content. We now already have a few examples of that with content imported from Citizendium. Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of re-users, and because it doesn't apply to all pages, and because re-users have to verify that it _actually_ applies on a per-page basis, I think it's completely appropriate to refer to the terms of use here rather than bloating up the site footer. People have to read the terms anyway to understand what's going on.
2009/6/18 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2009/6/18 Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be:
When I look at the updated en.wikipedia.org and [[meta:Licensing update/Implementation]] page I see that site footer only states that the text is licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License".
No mention anymore of the good old GNU/FDL.
Yes, there is the phrase; "additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details."
The GNU FDL does not apply to pages that import CC-BY-SA only content. We now already have a few examples of that with content imported from Citizendium. Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of re-users, and because it doesn't apply to all pages, and because re-users have to verify that it _actually_ applies on a per-page basis, I think it's completely appropriate to refer to the terms of use here rather than bloating up the site footer. People have to read the terms anyway to understand what's going on.
That seems reasonable to me, but I would say "alternative terms" rather than "additional terms". Additional terms suggests you have to follow them in addition to the CC ones, which isn't the case.
2009/6/18 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
That seems reasonable to me, but I would say "alternative terms" rather than "additional terms". Additional terms suggests you have to follow them in addition to the CC ones, which isn't the case.
The logic behind "additional" is that the phrase says "text is under ..", but the re-user may also want to copy any embedded media in the page. So it's an attempt to address both the issue of separate media licensing and alternative licensing options in a single phrase. :-)
2009/6/18 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
2009/6/18 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
That seems reasonable to me, but I would say "alternative terms" rather than "additional terms". Additional terms suggests you have to follow them in addition to the CC ones, which isn't the case.
The logic behind "additional" is that the phrase says "text is under ..", but the re-user may also want to copy any embedded media in the page. So it's an attempt to address both the issue of separate media licensing and alternative licensing options in a single phrase. :-)
Ok. Perhaps it is best not to use a single phrase, then. How about "Text is available under CC-BY-SA, additional terms may apply to non-text elements. Some elements may also be available under alternative terms." (or words to that effect). Still pretty concise, but isn't misleading.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Erik Moellererik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of re-users,
...
If this is the Foundation's view, why did it opt to push for (hobbled) dual-licencing going forward, instead of transitioning completely to CC-BY-SA and retaining GFDL only for legacy content?
2009/6/18 Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Erik Moellererik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of re-users,
...
If this is the Foundation's view, why did it opt to push for (hobbled) dual-licencing going forward, instead of transitioning completely to CC-BY-SA and retaining GFDL only for legacy content?
As I understand it, it was a concession made to the FSF during the negotiations.
It's more than a concession isn't it? The GFDL has the "or any later version" clause. The CC-BY-SA is not a later version of the GFDL. I think we have to keep it forever and ever.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/18 Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Erik Moellererik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Because the GFDL is only of interest to a minority of re-users,
...
If this is the Foundation's view, why did it opt to push for (hobbled) dual-licencing going forward, instead of transitioning completely to CC-BY-SA and retaining GFDL only for legacy content?
As I understand it, it was a concession made to the FSF during the negotiations.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/6/18 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
It's more than a concession isn't it? The GFDL has the "or any later version" clause. The CC-BY-SA is not a later version of the GFDL. I think we have to keep it forever and ever.
Existing content will always be available under the GFDL regardless of what the WMF does, the WMF has nothing to do with it. We're talking about new content. Legally, there is nothing requiring new content to be available under the GFDL, that requirement was introduced by the FSF as a condition for allowing us to switch.
What do you consider to be "new content" ? Newly started articles, or new edits?
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/18 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
It's more than a concession isn't it? The GFDL has the "or any later version" clause. The CC-BY-SA is not a later version of the GFDL. I think
we
have to keep it forever and ever.
Existing content will always be available under the GFDL regardless of what the WMF does, the WMF has nothing to do with it. We're talking about new content. Legally, there is nothing requiring new content to be available under the GFDL, that requirement was introduced by the FSF as a condition for allowing us to switch.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/6/18 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
What do you consider to be "new content" ? Newly started articles, or new edits?
Either.
Could there be some updates to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation as this page says the roll-out will start at 15. June, while http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2009-June/000959.html says new messages are to be rolled out "as early as Monday, June 29". In addition the page at meta says local admins should not interfere with the roll out, while several projects now have their own improvised messages.
John
Erik Moeller skrev:
As per the licensing update decision by the community and the Board, I've updated the site terms on the English Wikipedia (and the WMF website) today, and posted a reference copy of the site-wide terms of use to:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
The Wikimedia Commons licensing task force has gone ahead and updated the relevant GFDL templates on Commons to indicate that eligible media files may also be available under CC-BY-SA.
The English Wikipedia roll-out serves as a reference implementation and may lead to some final tweaks in the terms and language. In the coming days, we'll begin the translation and roll-out in other eligible projects and languages. Communities will be able to customize the messages and terms within limits, as described here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation
Our site-wide roll-out will likely override any project-local bottom-up implementation between now and then.
2009/6/25 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no:
Could there be some updates to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation as this page says the roll-out will start at 15. June, while http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2009-June/000959.html says new messages are to be rolled out "as early as Monday, June 29"
The English Wikipedia has had the official site terms since June 15. The code for an override in all languages is now in place as per http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/52361 and the messages are being translated through <translatewiki.net>, so nothing should stand in the way of a Monday roll-out. These translated messages will override any current implementations, but if implementors have followed the official implementation guide, those implementations shouldn't do any active harm.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org