--- Tomasz Sienicki tsca@edb.dk wrote:
"After the consultation with Wikimedia lawyers I can inform you that it is acceptable to import content to our Wiki under the licence disallowing its commercial re-use," wrote the admin of one of the Wikimedia projects and entered into a co-operation with a certain external service (with the aim of importing their content to the Wiki under such non-commmercial re-use only licence; although the service agreed to relicence their content as PD, the admin suggested CC BY-NC).
Wikimedia lawyers? Since when have we had lawyers? Who the hell is this admin? Admins do not have any authority to enter into any agreement on behalf of the foundation without board approval.
My personal opinion is that this goes against the policy of Wikimedia and violates the principles crucial to a lot of people who contribute to the Wikis.
Not just opinion, you are exactly right. It is also a clear violation of the GNU FDL.
-- mav
Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Okay, okay, since the admin in question is me, I think I have to take action and take part in this discussion.
First of all, yes, I'm the one to blame for everything bad what's been said. But now, let me explain some things.
'My' decision wasn't final. I proposed to e-Polityka.pl, that either they can license their content under one of the CC licenses, or the articles we'll use on Wikinews will be licensed on one of the CC licenses. There was no final decision which license will be used, though I have to agree, I proposed CC-BY-NC as the first. I didn't really gave much thought about it, so I should be blamed here, by even proposing such a license.
Second - personally, I still wanted to talk with the staff of e-Polityka.pl and persuade them to use some CC license, the less restrict it would give, the better.
Third, right now, Wikinews is under PD. This complicates things a bit, like someone else mentioned, but based on my email and the reply I got at Juriwiki, a simple disclaimer in the news article should be okay to use a different license.
On 5/5/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Wikimedia lawyers? Since when have we had lawyers? Who the hell is this admin? Admins do not have any authority to enter into any agreement on behalf of the foundation without board approval.
"Wikimedia lawyers" - it was a mental byway (I'm not sure how to correctly call it). By this I ment Juriwiki, as the purpose of that list is to answer legal questions regarding Wikimedia projects. The truth is, I didn't correctly express the commercial way of e-Polityka.pl in my email, which brought confusion.
Also, you can't really call this an agreement which had to have the Board's approval. This was "just" the community's decision, which we first had to discuss. After all, if e-Polityka.pl would license their text under, for example, CC-BY, there wouldn't be any problem regarding the license, right? That's why we didn't contact the Foundation with any questions, I just personally contacted Juriwiki (first I was strongly oppose the idea of such cooperation).
Finally, to make my point clear. I have not made any official decision by myself. Yes, I was wrong with even proposing the CC-BY-NC license, but as you can see, there isn't any decision on our cooperation, and it's still being discussed - http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Wsp%C3%B3%C5%82praca_z_innymi_serwisami.... Though it looks like we've made a decision, I haven't moved the agreement on the article page, I'm still personally discussing it with the man who contacted us, and I'm trying to persuade them to license their content in overall by some non-restrictive CC license. But it's true - if it wouldn't be for this email, we'd probably have their content under a none-commercial license.
Once again, I'm sorry for all this misunderstanding, as it happened mainly because of me. I'll post again later, if we'll have an agreement on another license with the portal.
If Jimbo's proposed requirement of having the contributor grant their copyright to Wikimedia is instituted, then wouldn't this prevent importing *any* CC-WIKI/other content without having the original authors agree to these unique terms?
Jack Lutz wrote:
If Jimbo's proposed requirement of having the contributor grant their copyright to Wikimedia is instituted,
I have never proposed any requirement like this.
then wouldn't this prevent importing *any* CC-WIKI/other content without having the original authors agree to these unique terms?
No, if the license is a CC-BY and not CC-BY-SA style license, then it would not. It is true that copyleft doesn't play nicely in most cases with other licenses. But for Wikinews, there seems to be pretty strong sentiment against using a copyleft license for various reasons that strike me as valid.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Jack Lutz wrote:
If Jimbo's proposed requirement of having the contributor grant their copyright to Wikimedia is instituted,
I have never proposed any requirement like this.
I may be using the wrong term; it's from this:
"The idea is this: contributors agree to release everything under CC-BY (Wiki version) but they *also* give the Wikimedia Foundation the right to do anything we like with it." [Wikinews-l] CC Licensing
This is the problem with jurists, they always answer the exact question you asked and never the question you meant :) Don't bother for the bashing regarding your mail, this list is getting so friendly and peaceful that it's even useless to take care. Try working out your project a bit more and Cheers :o
villy ~~JC
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dariusz Siedlecki" datrio@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:43 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Only non-commercial re-use od Wiki content?
"Wikimedia lawyers" - it was a mental byway (I'm not sure how to correctly call it). By this I ment Juriwiki, as the purpose of that list is to answer legal questions regarding Wikimedia projects. The truth is, I didn't correctly express the commercial way of e-Polityka.pl in my email, which brought confusion.
Hi Dariusz,
thanks for going out and trying to establish content partnerships. I think a license like CC-BY or CC-BY-SA would be fine if the content is clearly labeled as such. The problem with CC-BY-NC or similar "noncommercial use only" licenses is not necessarily incompatibility, but that they don't fit our established definition of free content, i.e. far too many uses we want to allow become impossible.
All best,
Erik
On 5/5/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Dariusz,
thanks for going out and trying to establish content partnerships. I think a license like CC-BY or CC-BY-SA would be fine if the content is clearly labeled as such. The problem with CC-BY-NC or similar "noncommercial use only" licenses is not necessarily incompatibility, but that they don't fit our established definition of free content, i.e. far too many uses we want to allow become impossible.
All best,
Erik
Erik,
I'd like to make sure that I understand this clearly, and maybe someone else will benefit from my asking questions that may seem redundant...
Isn't it the case that, when someone posts content to Wikipedia, they are releasing it under GFDL, regardless of any other license they may also choose to release it under? So, even if the content in question were clearly labeled as CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or even CC-BY-NC, it is also released under GFDL. With the exception of putting something into PD (or some other less restrictive license than GFDL), it just doesn't matter what other restrictions may be claimed, it is still released under GFDL. Excepting, of course, content posted without the knowledge or permission of the copyright holder.
-- Rich Holton
[[W:en:User:Rholton]]
Okay, that's settled.
http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Wsp%C3%B3%C5%82praca_z_innymi_serwisami
CC-BY was chosen, and that's final. If anyone has any objections, ask them now, or it'll be too late.
...
No, just kidding, it won't be too late, but it's better to ask now ;).
On 5/5/05, Richard Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't it the case that, when someone posts content to Wikipedia, they are releasing it under GFDL, regardless of any other license they may also choose to release it under? So, even if the content in question were clearly labeled as CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or even CC-BY-NC, it is also released under GFDL. With the exception of putting something into PD (or some other less restrictive license than GFDL), it just doesn't matter what other restrictions may be claimed, it is still released under GFDL. Excepting, of course, content posted without the knowledge or permission of the copyright holder.
Just don't forget we're discussing Wikinews right now, and that's far away from GFDL.
-- Best regards, Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki
On 5/5/05, Dariusz Siedlecki datrio@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/05, Richard Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't it the case that, when someone posts content to Wikipedia, they are releasing it under GFDL, regardless of any other license they may also choose to release it under? So, even if the content in question were clearly labeled as CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or even CC-BY-NC, it is also released under GFDL. With the exception of putting something into PD (or some other less restrictive license than GFDL), it just doesn't matter what other restrictions may be claimed, it is still released under GFDL. Excepting, of course, content posted without the knowledge or permission of the copyright holder.
Just don't forget we're discussing Wikinews right now, and that's far away from GFDL.
Ah, well yes, you're right. On Wikinews (at least en.wikinews) by posting you are placing the contents into the public domain...again, regardless of any other restrictions you may claim. Right?
-- Rich Holton
[[W:en:User:Rholton]]
Richard-
Ah, well yes, you're right. On Wikinews (at least en.wikinews) by posting you are placing the contents into the public domain...again, regardless of any other restrictions you may claim. Right?
When launching Wikinews, we didn't want to settle on an undeniably flawed license like the GFDL, nor necessarily commit to the "copyleft" principle, before evaluating the ways in which Wikinews content is developed and used. The public domain was therefore chosen as the initial "license" for Wikinews, as it allows us to migrate to any other license relatively painlessly.
We will likely switch to a variant of CC-BY soon (one which requires attribution to the wiki, rather than any individual author), which is more legally sane than the PD.
Because someone posting someone else's material cannot put it in the public domain without the other person's permission, the click-through agreement does not apply to such content. The question then becomes, do we want to remove CC-BY or CC-BY-SA content posted by others? Given the above, I'd say that it's reasonable to label content under CC-BY as such and keep it. As for CC-BY-SA, GFDL, etc., the situation is not quite as clear, but for the sake of interoperability, I'd be inclined to be in favor of allowing such content when labeled. Wikinews stories are relatively independent from one another.
If this becomes established practice, it may make sense to amend the copyright notice to say ".. is in the public domain where not otherwise noted."
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
The question then becomes, do we want to remove CC-BY or CC-BY-SA content posted by others? Given the above, I'd say that it's reasonable to label content under CC-BY as such and keep it. As for CC-BY-SA, GFDL, etc., the situation is not quite as clear, but for the sake of interoperability, I'd be inclined to be in favor of allowing such content when labeled. Wikinews stories are relatively independent from one another.
This is reasonable, but to be usable it should be restricted to only a few licenses, and they should be very clearly marked, so it doesn't become a confusing tangle of licenses for potential reusers.
-Mark
Because someone posting someone else's material cannot put it in the public domain without the other person's permission, the click-through agreement does not apply to such content. The question then becomes, do we want to remove CC-BY or CC-BY-SA content posted by others? Given the above, I'd say that it's reasonable to label content under CC-BY as such and keep it. As for CC-BY-SA, GFDL, etc., the situation is not quite as clear, but for the sake of interoperability, I'd be inclined to be in favor of allowing such content when labeled. Wikinews stories are relatively independent from one another.
If this becomes established practice, it may make sense to amend the copyright notice to say ".. is in the public domain where not otherwise noted."
Once again, many legislations forbid that authors put their work in PD.
Why ? Because publishers would be very happy to force them to do so ! It's a protection for authors.
So, chosing PD as a basis is a major legal flaw that will give wikinews team a lot of headaches... and that will make me very busy on irc :)
On 5/6/05, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@gmail.com wrote:
Once again, many legislations forbid that authors put their work in PD.
Why ? Because publishers would be very happy to force them to do so ! It's a protection for authors.
Certainly not. A publisher would not want an author to put their work in the PD, because it means that any other publisher can republish the work without charge. A publisher would prefer to make publication by others either illegal (by taking over the copyright) or otherwise as restricted as possible. Public Domain would be the full antithesis of that.
So, chosing PD as a basis is a major legal flaw that will give wikinews team a lot of headaches... and that will make me very busy on irc :)
In my opinion, PD in that case should simply be taken to mean "the author grants everyone unlimited rights to do as they please."
Which, by the way, is indeed impossible in the law of certain countries. I as a Dutchman for example cannot sign away my right to object to the material being published under another name than mine, or to mutilation of the work in such a way that it is damaging to my honour or good name as the author.
Andre Engels
On 5/6/05, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@gmail.com wrote:
Once again, many legislations forbid that authors put their work in PD.
Why ? Because publishers would be very happy to force them to do so ! It's a protection for authors.
Certainly not. A publisher would not want an author to put their work in the PD, because it means that any other publisher can republish the work without charge. A publisher would prefer to make publication by others either illegal (by taking over the copyright) or otherwise as restricted as possible. Public Domain would be the full antithesis of that.
I agree with you, but that is the justification for the French law stating that French authors cannot let trash their author's rights in order to avoid economical pressure from publishers.
So, chosing PD as a basis is a major legal flaw that will give wikinews team a lot of headaches... and that will make me very busy on irc :)
In my opinion, PD in that case should simply be taken to mean "the author grants everyone unlimited rights to do as they please." Which, by the way, is indeed impossible in the law of certain countries. I as a Dutchman for example cannot sign away my right to object to the material being published under another name than mine, or to mutilation of the work in such a way that it is damaging to my honour or good name as the author.
Same thing in France. In that case any French author writing on wikinews could try to sue anybody using wikinews content.
Andre Engels wrote:
In my opinion, PD in that case should simply be taken to mean "the author grants everyone unlimited rights to do as they please."
Which, by the way, is indeed impossible in the law of certain countries. I as a Dutchman for example cannot sign away my right to object to the material being published under another name than mine, or to mutilation of the work in such a way that it is damaging to my honour or good name as the author.
This sounds as though you're mixing up copyrights and moral rights. Copyright is an economic right. Allowing all others to republish the work without paying royalties falls within that. Demanding that you be shown as the author is a different thing. Whether a "mutilation" damages your honour or good name would be an arguable question of fact. Parodies would not fall into that.
Ec
On 5/7/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This sounds as though you're mixing up copyrights and moral rights. Copyright is an economic right. Allowing all others to republish the work without paying royalties falls within that. Demanding that you be shown as the author is a different thing. Whether a "mutilation" damages your honour or good name would be an arguable question of fact. Parodies would not fall into that.
I don't understand your statement. The question was whether it was possible to put some of your work in the public domain. Public domain to me means "Anyone can use it however they like". The law says that there are certain rights to the work that I cannot sign away. Thus, I cannot put it in the public domain. I *can* allow others to republish the work without royalties, but there are certain rights I cannot give them.
Andre Engels
Ah, well yes, you're right. On Wikinews (at least en.wikinews) by posting you are placing the contents into the public domain...again, regardless of any other restrictions you may claim. Right?
No
For example, given french law, french people can't place anything in PD. And they're not the only one !
Isn't it the case that, when someone posts content to Wikipedia, they are releasing it under GFDL, regardless of any other license they may also choose to release it under? So, even if the content in question were clearly labeled as CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or even CC-BY-NC, it is also released under GFDL. With the exception of putting something into PD (or some other less restrictive license than GFDL), it just doesn't matter what other restrictions may be claimed, it is still released under GFDL. Excepting, of course, content posted without the knowledge or permission of the copyright holder.
Given the way you say it, I would say yes...
Once again, dual-licensing can be a solution.
Jean-Baptiste Soufron CERSA - CNRS, Paris 2 http://soufron.free.fr
Le 5 mai 05, à 21:19, Erik Moeller a écrit :
Hi Dariusz,
thanks for going out and trying to establish content partnerships. I think a license like CC-BY or CC-BY-SA would be fine if the content is clearly labeled as such. The problem with CC-BY-NC or similar "noncommercial use only" licenses is not necessarily incompatibility, but that they don't fit our established definition of free content, i.e. far too many uses we want to allow become impossible.
All best,
Erik _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
*You* don't *have* lawyers, that's for sure. Some lawyers are gathered in a specific mailing-L called Juriwiki in order to give a volunteer help to Wikimedia Foundation. It was announced on this list some time ago. Plus I tried to launch some legal pages on meta.
villy ~~JC
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com To: "Tomasz Sienicki" tsca@edb.dk; "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Only non-commercial re-use od Wiki content?
| Wikimedia lawyers? Since when have we had lawyers? Who the hell is this admin? | Admins do not have any authority to enter into any agreement on behalf of the | foundation without board approval.
| Yahoo! Mail | Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: | http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html | | _______________________________________________ | foundation-l mailing list | foundation-l@wikimedia.org | http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org